Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH RAILWAYS (STANSTED) BILL

Order for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Renfrew District (SDA Expenditure)

Mr. Allen Adams: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of Scottish Development Agency money has been spent in Renfrew district since 1981.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): In the period April 1981 to Nov ember 1986 the agency has spent a total of £15·6 million in Renfrew, representing 2·4 per cent. of its total budget.

Mr. Adams: Is the Minister aware that 250,000 people live within the Renfrew district and that over the past decade more than 20,000 jobs have been lost in manufacturing industry in that area? Only last week 600 jobs were lost at Babcock and Walcock Power Ltd., which is a high tech industry based in Renfrew, yet the Scottish Development Agency has spent only 2 per cent. of its overall budget for the past five years in this area. That is disgraceful. What does the Secretary of State intend to do to increase that percentage, and does he intend to instruct the Scottish Development Agency to take account of the dire and grave situation that now exists at Babcock and Walcock in Renfrew?

Mr. Lang: I recognise the problems of Babcock's, but I am sure the hon. Gentleman appreciates that there is a worldwide recession in the demand for power generating equipment. The development of the Scottish Development Agency's initiative reflects the concern in the Renfrew district. I shall meet the district council next week, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall be as sympathetic and helpful as I can.

Mrs. McCurley: Will my hon. Friend take into account the fact that we have been able to attract the firm of Compaq to my constituency of Renfrew, West. If we are able to attract such firms, it would be advisable for the Minister to initiate action along the lines of the successful

Inverclyde initiative, perhaps on a larger scale. Will my hon. Friend consider granting special status for Renfrew, bearing in mind that traditional areas such as that district have difficulty in competing with the new towns and the enterprise packages that they can offer?

Mr. Speaker: May I ask for brief questions?

Mr. Lang: I recognise the problems mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mrs. McCurley). We are, indeed, anxious to get the Renfrew initiative under way. We are ready to give active and speedy consideration to any viable opportunities.
My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that Compaq has been attracted to Erskine, and about 365 jobs will be created there in the next four years. This is an important success for Locate in Scotland.

Mr. Buchan: It will take the next four years to create half the number of jobs that we lost last week. Does the Minister accept that a decade ago over 20,000 women were working in the cotton industry in the same area, but that now there are only about 1,100? The entire Linwood factory has been decimated. Originally there were 8,000 workers, now there are none. Does the Minister accept that at the time of the Linwood closure, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mrs. Curley), the Secretary of State promised special measures but they have not come forward? Compaq is good news, but we have not been given a good deal.

Mr. Lang: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise the importance of the initiative that we are considering and the success that we have had in broadening the manufacturing base of the Scottish economy. I recall the hon. Gentleman's prognostication in August 1978 that unemployment would rise to over 3 million, whichever party was in power.

Mr. Gordon Brown: Given the problems faced by Renfrew district and every other area in Scotland, what possible help can it be to impose, this week of all weeks, and today of all days, further moratoria on the payment of regional development grants in Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom? How long will the moratoria last and why, having lost 192,000 manufacturing jobs in Scotland, are the Government now destroying the means by which industrial recovery could take place?

Mr. Lang: I am sure the hon. Gentleman recognises the substantial take up of regional development aid under this Government. As he knows, two systems overlap at present, and this has created a bulge which will lead to a certain waiting period, but not an intolerable one.

Mr. Allan Stewart: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said about a meeting with Renfrew district and about the Renfrew initiative, but does he agree that a successful strategy for Renfrew must be based on successes in the area, such as the substantial expansion plans at Glasgow airport and the success and expansion of English Sewing at Neilston in Renfrewshire, in my constituency? Is it not appalling that Opposition Members should concentrate so much on the bad news instead of giving a balanced presentation?

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to those important successes. I understand that investment at the Neilston plant totals about £7 million and will create


approximately 760 jobs, which is rather more than was envisaged when originally planned. I believe that it is the major thread manufacturing plant in the English Sewing group.

Mr. Dewar: I presume that the Minister is familiar with the contents of the Government expenditure plans for 1987–88 to 1989–90, which were published at noon today. He will know, therefore, that they contain an announcement of further moratoria on the payment of regional development grant to cover new regional development grant as well as old grant. How long will these moratoria last? What will they save the Treasury, or, more important, on the other side of the coin, what will they cost Scottish industry?
What possible defence can there be for weakening a central plank of industrial policy when bad news crowds in on almost every side and when, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) has said, the Department of Employment's own figures show that between June 1979 and June 1986 we lost 192,000 jobs in manufacturing industry in Scotland? What possible justification can there be for further cuts in the industrial incentives and industry budget for Scotland?

Mr. Lang: I understand that the waiting period for RDG2 will be about two months, compared with four months for RDG1. That waiting period reflects the bulge that has arisen as a result of the substantial number of applications. However, the provision for next year is some 26 per cent. above what was originally anticipated.

Council House Sales

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many council houses have been sold to sitting tenants in Scotland in each year since 1983.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Ancram): In 1983, 17,800 houses were sold to sitting tenants, including tenants of the new towns and the Scottish Special Housing Association. In 1984 the number was 16,000; and in 1985, 14,800. A final figure for 1986 is not yet available.

Mr. Knox: Can my hon. Friend tell us whether the number of applications to buy council houses in Scotland is on an upward or downward trend?

Mr. Ancram: In the second quarter of 1986 the number of applications was running at about 2,000 each month, which was very encouraging. That is about 20 per cent. up on the same quarter in 1985 and is only slightly lower than the peak levels in 1983. We believe that that shows the healthy continuing impact of the right-to-buy policy in Scotland.

Mr. Henderson: Does the north-east Fife district still hold the record for being the Scottish district council which has enabled the greatest number of its tenants to buy their own homes? If so, does that mean that more funds are available to meet today's housing needs for those who wish to remain tenants?

Mr. Ancram: I cannot say whether that district council still holds the record, but it certainly has a very high, successful rate of council house sales. It is a lesson to other councils that the resources released by the sale of council houses can be used to deal with the serious structural problems that exist in the rest of Scotland's public housing stock.

Teachers (Pay and Conditions)

Mr. Strang: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with the teaching unions about conditions for teachers in schools: and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Kirkwood: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the current state of the teachers' pay dispute.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): Discussions during December within the Scottish Joint Negotiating Committee resulted in new agreements on pay and conditions acceptable to the Government, the local authorities and the teachers' representatives. The proposals agreed offer teachers an improved salary structure and prospects, while clarifying teachers' duties and providing a more sensible approach to conditions of service.
I hope that teachers will accept this package, so that parents and pupils can look forward to the end of this long-running dispute and a return to normality in Scottish schools.

Mr. Strang: Did the Secretary of State notice that the Main arguments for a "Yes" vote used by the Educational Institute of Scotland in the teachers' ballot was that a bad deal was the best that could be obtained from this Conservative Government and that the alternative was an imposed settlement? Why have the Government refused to restore teacher salaries to Houghton levels? Why have they attacked the professional status of teachers by stipulating duties and hours of work? Why have they failed to provide the additional staffing and material resources which the children in our state schools so desperately need?

Mr. Rifkind: For a start, in objecting to conditions of service, the hon. Gentleman is disagreeing with every Labour-controlled local authority in Scotland. He will be well aware that the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and Labour-controlled education authorities have been as insistent as anyone else on that aspect of the negotiated package. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should consult his colleagues.
The hon. Gentleman should also realise that the pay scale—the 16·4 per cent. increase—was the level recommended by the committee under Sir Peter Main. It has proved acceptable to the teachers' representatives and, therefore, should be acceptable to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Kirkwood: Notwithstanding the fact that the Government have seriously mishandled the issue ever since the Main report was produced and that there have been consequential effects in the low morale in our classrooms, is the Secretary of State aware that my right hon. Friends and I will urge the teachers to accept the new agreement that has been struck? It would help to obtain a positive response from the teaching profession if he would say what plans the Government have to ensure that teachers do not fall inexorably behind in future pay claims?

Mr. Rifkind: If the hon. Gentleman is being courteous and kind enough to recommend teachers to accept the proposed agreement, he might also acknowledge that that agreement has proved possible only because of the huge extra resources being made available by the Government to ensure increases in teachers' salaries.

Sir Hector Monro: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the present likely settlement is due to his wisdom in setting up the Main committee last year? Does he agree that the vote is being taken virtually on the Main committee's recommendations and that the parents and the children of Scotland will be highly delighted with his achievement during the past year?

Mr. Rifkind: I thank my hon. Friend. Although the agreement that has been reached departs in several significant ways from the recommendation by Sir Peter Main and his colleagues, any fair and objective commentator would agree that without the report that Sir Peter Main produced some months ago it is almost inconceivable that we could now have reached an agreement that is endorsed by the teachers, the local authorities and the Government.

Mr. Dewar: The Secretary of State will, of course, recognise that we have severe reservations about the way in which this very difficult matter has been handled. Does he accept that there will be relief, certainly among Opposition Members, if a settlement is reached in the dispute? I am sure that parents, the public and the vast majority of teachers do not want a return to confrontation.
In the circumstances, and with voting still in progress, would it not be helpful for the Secretary of State to confirm his and the Government's commitment to the staffing review, which is an integral part of the settlement, and to the funding of that and other items outwith the actual pay structure—such as class cover for absences and the phasing out of composite classes?

Mr. Rifkind: I thank the hon. Gentleman for declaring that he would welcome an acceptance by the teachers of the current negotiated position. The personal contribution that he has made to ensure that the atmosphere in which these matters have been discussed during the past few weeks has helped towards what we all hope will be a settlement.
The Government have accepted the recommendation in the Main report that there should be a staffing review, and that is well understood.

Forestry

Mr. Maclennan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his policy for forestry.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John MacKay): The policy remains as set out in statements by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), now the Secretary of State for Defence, on 10 December 1980 and, as far as the sale of Forestry Commission land is concerned, on 8 November 1984.

Mr. Maclennan: Is it not extraordinary that, in six years, the Government's forestry policy has not changed? Is there not a need to encourage the expansion of afforestation as an alternative crop, in the light of the surplus production from agricultural land and to increase the timber industry? Is it not also important that farmers, crofters and smallholders should be able to participate in that development? What proposals does the Minister have for the control of afforestation? Does he favour a licensing system, which seems to be widely favoured throughout Scotland?

Mr. MacKay: The hon. Gentleman asked several questions. Forestry policy, as with all policies, is kept under review. Obviously, we are aware of all the points that the hon. Gentleman made. It is right that forestry policy should take into account matters such as conservation and the environment. It should also take into account the problem of agricultural surpluses, the need to find other uses for agricultural land and, indeed, the useful and important jobs that are provided by forestry in the countryside. I wonder what the hon. Gentleman's view is on the rather more controversial issue of forestry in his own constituency, where important jobs are being provided.

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: Does my hon. Friend understand that there is great and growing concern about the widespread afforestation of the flow country of Caithness and Sutherland? Will he ensure that forestry applications in those areas are taken by the Forestry Commission to the Nature Conservancy Council for discussion so that this unique habitat can be adequately protected?

Mr. MacKay: From my correspondence, I am well aware of the wide interest in the flow country, usually outside the flow country itself, where perhaps the locals—like the locals in most of the highlands—take a slightly more relaxed view of these matters because they see both sides of the issue. There is no question of the whole of the flow country being covered by conifers. Most of the land outside the areas already planted or approved for planting is either not suitable for forestry or will not be available for it. We have set up a group of officials to consider the future use of land in this part of Scotland and the NCC is represented in that group.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Is the Minister aware that, contrary to the impression he gave, the level of employment provided has been extremely small, even in the Highland region? Is he further aware of the criticism by the chairman of the Highlands and Islands Development Board that the environment has been radically altered by insensitive planting and that most of that planting has been done by distant companies operating tax fiddles? When will the Scottish Office examine Scottish forestry policy?

Mr. MacKay: The present procedure whereby the Forestry Commission consults several bodies before approving planting grants to the private sector and, indeed, before it decides on its own planting policy, works reasonably well. Forest planting is improving. Foresters in both the private and public sectors are more aware of environmental issues than they once were. About 40,000 jobs are provided in the forestry industry in Great Britain, either directly or in the downstream industries that depend on the raw material coming out of our forests.

Mr. Bill Walker: My hon. Friend will be aware that substantial forests are contained within my constituency and that they are an important part of the local economy. Does he agree that any nation that has a £4,000 million import bill for timber must look carefully at the policy for more afforestation, that there is substantial scope for it in Scotland and that it should be encouraged substantially through the private sector?

Mr. MacKay: I first welcome back my hon. Friend to the House. We look forward to hearing from him on a number of issues. He highlights an important point,


namely, that forest product imports, running at £4·5 billion, are our major single import. Therefore, the increase of afforestation is important for that reason, as well as for many others.

Mr. Kennedy: May I reassure the Minister on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) that he will reply to the Minister's question as soon as possible? May I resume my hon. Friend's point with specific reference to Glenelg in my constituency, a socially fragile area as regards employment, as the previous Secretary of State said in the announcement to which the Minister referred in his initial answer? Surely the handling of that raises my hon. Friend's point—that if there were more local participation in forestry some of the anxiety would, perhaps, be overcome or at least partially allayed. Instead, there have been rather dubious dealings on the possible disposal of that asset.

Mr. MacKay: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. There is room for forestry, both on a large scale, financed by outside means, and for farm or estate forestry. It is important for us to find ways to encourage that. The Government are giving a good deal of thought to those matters at present.

Mr. Corrie: Is my hon. Friend aware that the NCC is designating as SSSIs areas which might contain something of interest so that they cannot be planted? Is that not a gross misuse of present legislation?

Mr. MacKay: I should certainly like to study any case that exhibits that tendency, because, as I remember, designation must be done on the basis of present scientific evidence, not on the basis of something which may or may not happen in future. If my hon. Friend wishes to write to me or my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram), who is more directly involved in SSSIs, he should do so.

Mr. Home Robertson: Now that the National Audit Office has joined almost everyone else in criticising the inordinate expense and questionable effects of vast tax handouts to private forestry speculators, including Mr. Terry Wogan and others, in Caithness and Sutherland, will the Government reconsider the scope of those incentives and the adoption of more positive incentives and policies for both the Forestry Commission and the private sector to expand woodlands sensibly and sensitively, especially in lowland agricultural areas?

Mr. MacKay: I listened to the hon. Gentleman's question and found it difficult to understand what his party's policy would be if, in the unlikely event, it won an election. The present tax arragements for forestry are of long standing and Governments of both parties have gone along with them to encourage private afforestation. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that the Labour party is against private afforestation, many people whose jobs depend on it will be interested.

Dundee and Aberdeen Colleges of Education

Mr. Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the proposed merger of Dundee and Aberdeen colleges of education.

Mr. John MacKay: I have endorsed the main principles in the report of the working party set up to consider the

implementation of the decision to merge Aberdeen and Dundee colleges of education, including the report's recommendations for the pre-service rationalisation of community education and secondary teacher training.

Mr. Wilson: Does the Minister think, in his heart of hearts, that it is nonsense geographically to link two colleges which are 60 miles apart and serve the distinctive areas of east central Scotland and northern Scotland? How does he think that the merger and the rationalisation that will take place will help educational provision in the areas concerned? Will he answer the particular worry expressed in Dundee, that there is an imbalance in the present arrangement in so far as the administration and principal are to be located principally in Aberdeen college, with Dundee reduced to a secondary status?

Mr. MacKay: I cannot agree that the Dundee part of the northern college is being reduced to a secondary status. I remind him of the Scottish Tertiary Education Advisory Council report which recommended to the Government that we should end up with three non-denominational colleges. This merger is an essential part of our strategy, which we adopted to achieve rationalisation without the closure of a single site. It is important to remember that. With effort on the part of the people in Aberdeen and Dundee, the merger can be made to work. There are important educational advantages in concentrating the services on one site instead of having very small classes indeed on two sites.

Mr. Henderson: Will my hon. Friend accept that many of us feel that the Government were absolutely right to take the line that they have taken? Although it may not be ideal, it is infinitely better than the line recommended by STEAC, and it was supported by the Liberal party, because the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) told the EIS that it was in favour of maintaining the majority of education centres in Scotland. Of course, that implied that the Liberals were prepared to close some. Will my hon. Friend also bear in mind the suggestion for a European education establishment in Dundee?

Mr. MacKay: My hon. Friend is right to highlight the choices that were before the Government—the STEAC proposals to close some colleges and what we have put forward, which includes the merger of these two colleges. If and when a definite set of proposals for a European college is submitted for consideration by member states of the Community, I shall certainly wish to see Scotland's claim, including the claim by Dundee, being seriously considered.

Mr. Ernie Ross: The Minister must recognise that it is nonsense to try to suggest that two colleges that are over 60 miles apart can somehow be regarded as one. Beyond that, the secrecy and speed with which this report was cobbled together takes away any attempt by the Government to suggest that any democratic procedure was involved in the drawing up of this plan. The shambles that has resulted from the allocation of various departments to Aberdeen or to Dundee can only be the result of this nonsense of rushing through an undemocratically prepared report.

Mr. MacKay: I cannot agree with the hon. Member that the report has been rushed through. The work was done on a tight time scale, but that was important because it cannot be in anybody's interest for the implementation


of this merger to be drawn out unduly. The working party has demonstrated that the merger can create a new and powerful college by combining the two colleges at Aberdeen and Dundee.

Mrs. McCurley: Will my hon. Friend take into consideration the fact that colleges of education have a local impact, especially on curriculum development and on student teaching practice? Distance does count and has a serious impact.

Mr. MacKay: I appreciate that, and that is one of the reasons why we decided to keep both colleges and not close one, or indeed both, as STEAC might have suggested if one had read it that way. We have decided to keep both colleges, and their facilities will be available for education in both Grampian and Tayside.

Mr. Tom Clark: Will the Minister respond especially to my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) and tell the House what precise savings will be made by the proposal that will justify the inconvenience and disrupion that will inevitably arise?

Mr. MacKay: There will obviously be savings in some of the staffing costs. When we dispose of certain properties in the buildings which are not being used now, or will not be used in the future, that will obviously result in major savings. Above all, there are educational points to be made. Both colleges were running with extraordinarily small classes and on an extraordinarily limited coverage of the curriculum. The colleges will be greatly strengthened by concentrating their resources on one or the other in different fields.

Alcohol Rehabilitation Centres

Sir Russell Johnston: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will provide specific financial resources to enable local authorities to make provision for alcohol rehabilitation centres.

Mr. Mackay: No, Sir. It is for local authorities to decide their own spending priorities within the available resources. Government grants are made to voluntary bodies which provide designated places under the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980.

Sir Russell Johnston: It is now seven years since the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 was introduced and we have still only one rehabilitation centre in Scotland. Does the Minister agree that the reason for this is that the Government are unwilling to make any financial commitment beyond three years, and for that reason local authorities are unwilling to take on something for which they feel they will not be able to pay? That policy was again enunciated by the Government in a letter to Highland region in November last year about the proposed centre at Inverness. Will the hon. Gentleman reconsider it there and elsewhere in Scotland?

Mr. MacKay: The hon. Gentleman ought to understand what pump-priming is about. It is an exercise to encourage the voluntary sector to set up these projects. We have put a lot of money into them, in capital terms, and we have helped them in the first three years in revenue terms. Indeed, in the case of Albyn House, we have gone on to help it for a fourth year. But these matters are the responsibility of local authorities. We are prepared to back voluntary projects to get them off the ground, and then

local authorities will have to take over the main line funding. It is a method of encouraging projects, and I am keen to see more of them. I just wish that more projects would be brought forward.

Mr. Hirst: Is my hon. Friend aware that Low Moss prison and Bishopbriggs have been doing valuable work in the treatment of alcohol offenders? Nevertheless, does my hon. Friend agree that alcohol treatment centres such as Albyn House in Aberdeen are far more appropriate places in which to treat offenders who are guilty of drunken and disorderly offences? Does he agree that if such a change were to come about it would help to reduce prison overcrowding?

Mr. MacKay: I agree that Albyn House has been successful. As I have already said, we are keen to help voluntary projects, if they are brought forward. We have one in Dundee, but we are having an awful lot of trouble with it. It is in trouble with Tayside regional council, which has refused a certificate of registration under the Act to the Dundee proposal. This is very discouraging.

Dr. M. S. Miller: Does the Minister not realise that alcohol is a very intractable problem and that what is required is not merely a local aspect to the treatment and rehabilitation of the people affected but a national aspect? Money needs to be spent on centres to help these people. Sometimes a one-to-one approach is required.

Mr. Mackay: The hon. Gentleman has widened the question a little from designated centres. He is right to say that it is a difficult and intractable problem. The health boards try to play their part by providing facilities and resources and advice to people who have an alcohol problem. Help is also given by some of the voluntary bodies, which do excellent work.

Mr. Tom Clarke: I accept that the Albyn House experiment has been highly successful and is consistent with the objectives of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980, but does the Minister accept that it is both unhelpful and hypocritical of the Government to endorse the principle without supplying resources so that local authorities are able to make such establishments available? Will resources be made available, or will local authorities be rate-capped if they pursue the Government's objectives?

Mr. MacKay: That kind of resource is part and parcel of local authorities' social work resources. As for providing money for social work to local authorities, since the financial year 1982–83 to the one that we are just entering we have increased resources in real terms by about 12 per cent. That is a very significant increase in resources. Local authorities have to look to their priorities. If the hon. Gentleman were to suggest to his friends in COSLA that they should give this group a little higher priority, I might be able to agree with him.

Dornoch Rail Bridge

Mr. Robert Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration he has given to the Highlands Regional Council report on the Dornoch rail bridge; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Ancram: The consultant's report is still being studied carefully, but it does not appear to provide justification for the building of a rail bridge.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister not accept that the independent report presents a powerful and emphatic case for the building of the Dornoch rail bridge at the same time as the road bridge? When the Minister has finished studying the report, may I ask him not simply to pass the buck to British Rail but to take the initiative and have discussions with British Rail about how money for the funding of the bridge might be found?

Mr. Ancram: We are looking closely at the report, but our first examination of it shows that the social cost-benefit analysis describes the net present value of the bridge as negative. The hon. Gentleman knows that according to British Rail's analysis last year the revenue at risk was about £120,000, against a very conservative estimate for the cost of building the bridge of £12·7 million. When the spending of public resources is involved, this is a matter that has to be taken into consideration.

Mr. Allan Stewart: Will my hon. Friend take into account the fact that many people in the central belt question the justification for the priority given to the Dornoch road bridge within the total programme? Will he publish in the House of Commons Library a technical evaluation of the costs and benefits of the Dornoch road bridge?

Mr. Ancram: In building any bridge or any road careful evaluation is made to show the positive benefits resulting from the work. This was done for the Dornoch road bridge and that is why we agreed to go forward with it. As regards a rail link associated with it, if this matter were to be re-opened it would delay severely the beginning of the construction of the road bridge.

Mr. Maclennan: Has the Minister not recongised that the consultants' report called for a cost-benefit analysis to be done and said that it was not possible for Mackay Consultants to do it? Will he therefore finance an independent cost-benefit analysis as a matter of urgency, since the narrow financial appraisal to which he referred and which was conducted by British Rail did not make out the case which Mackay Consultants felt was capable of being made out? Will he please not support his own party's spokesman's view that the road bridge will be delayed? The work on the approach roads could begin while this cost-benefit analysis was going ahead.

Mr. Ancram: On that latter point, I must disagree with the hon. Gentleman. Were a rail bridge associated with the road bridge to be considered, the design competition which is presently taking place would have to be put off while the design specifications for a rail bridge was drawn up. That would have the effect, as I said earlier, of delaying the start of the construction of the road bridge by a year. This is essentially a matter for British Rail, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware of the question mark which the building of a rail bridge would place over the Lairg loop.

Mr. Home Robertson: Will the Minister reaffirm the excellent case put by the Government for the Dornoch rail link in his own submission to the European regional development fund, which takes into account the fact that the implications of this decision are far wider than the finances of ScotRail and British Rail and could well affect every aspect of life in the north of Scotland in the future? So will he stop passing the buck between his Department,

the Highlands region, the Department of Transport and ScotRail and accept his responsibility to take this unique opportunity to secure the future of the north rail line?

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman cannot accuse the Government of passing the buck when this is a matter which has to be initiated by British Rail in the first place. British Rail made its own analysis last year, which showed a revenue at risk which was very small in comparison with the total cost of the bridge, and on that basis it did not believe that the project should go ahead. That was British Rail's judgment then, and I have no reason to think that it has changed its mind.

Steel Industry

Mr. James Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will next meet the chairman of British Steel Corporation to discuss the steel industry in Scotland.

Mr. Rifkind: I meet the chairman of the British Steel Corporation on a regular basis. No date for the next meeting has been arranged.

Mr. Hamilton: When the Minister next meets the British Steel Corporation chairman, will he discuss with him the steel users, many of whom are going out of business? As the Minister is aware, it has been announced today that the Caterpillar Tractor Company in my constituency will be closing within 15 to 18 months, with a loss of 1,121 jobs. As he is also aware, an announcement was made in September, when he was present, of a £62 million investment. Of that investment, £3·1 million of public money has been spent. Is he going to tell 113 now that he can do nothing about it? If so, what do the Government intend to do about it, because this is a diabolical scandal? This will mean unemployment in Lanarkshire on a 20 per cent. basis. The Secretary of State for Scotland and and the Government have a responsibility to do something about it.

Mr. Rifkind: I very much share the concern expressed by the hon. Gentleman over today's announcement affecting the plant at Uddingston. I regret and deplore the decision announced today. It is a decision which is all the more extraordinary because, as the hon. Gentleman has just said, as recently as four months ago the company announced a £62·5 million investment programme to secure the future of the plant. Substantial financial assistance for the project was offered by the Government and accepted by the company. The decision arises from a worldwide review of the company's manufacturing capacity. No consultation with the Government took place prior to today's announcement.
I shall be holding urgent discussions with the company. I understand that the closure will be phased over at least the next year. This gives us the opportunity to explore with the company what can be done to retain operations and employment at the Uddingston facility.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: Will my right hon. and learned Friend take the opportunity to remind the chairman of British Steel of the importance of getting across to the people of Scotland the fact that unless steel costs are kept within competitive levels steel users in the United Kingdom, particularly in Scotland, will find themselves uncompetitive and unable to compete?

Mr. Rifkind: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is very encouraging that British Steel recently announced half-yearly profits of about £68 million, compared with the vast losses that it was making a few years ago. Clearly, the prospects for the steel industry in Scotland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom can only be seen to be substantially improved now that the British Steel Corporation is profitable.

Mr. George Robertson: When the Secretary of State meets the chairman of British Steel, will he bear in mind the industrial wasteland being created in Lanarkshire as a result of steel industry and steel-using industry job losses and the fact that the closure of Caterpillar is yet another sickening blow for this area, which has suffered so much? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman recall Lord Young's speech at the Scottish Conservative party conference last year, when he held up the glowing example of the Garnock valley initiative in the creation of jobs where jobs in the steel industry had been lost? If the scale of help given to the Garnock valley is to be an example for Lanarkshire, the amount that will be required for Lanarkshire is more than £500 million. Are the Government willing to give that sort of help to unemployment-hit Lanarkshire?

Mr. Rifkind: I am well aware of the serious employment problems faced by Lanarkshire. As the hon. Gentleman will know, not only does Lanarkshire come within the special development area category, but the Scottish Development Agency is particularly involved in a number of projects with employment implications in the area. Of course, we are always willing to look at any ideas that may be forthcoming to ensure the improvement of employment prospects in Lanarkshire. It is not the only locality with such problems, but I fully appreciate the difficulties faced by the community in that part of Scotland.

Sir Russell Johnston: Does the commitment given by the right hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) to Ravenscraig still stand? If so, would it not be a good idea for the Minister to go to Ravenscraig to talk to the shop stewards there about the balance between low value-added slab and high-quality strip steel and the fact that, in the view of many people, this may well mean that Ravenscraig's future and profitability are gravely at risk?

Mr. Rifkind: I visited Ravenscraig not long ago and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland with responsibility for industry—the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang)—intends to make a similar visit in the relatively near future. We have had the opportunity to discuss matters with the trade unions and management at Ravenscraig. That useful source of information reveals the developments affecting Ravenscraig. I believe that the plant is in a far stronger position than it was some years ago because of the general improvement in the productivity of the individual plant and the increased profitability of the British Steel Corporation.

Mr. Corrie: When my right hon. and learned Friend speaks again to the chairman of the British Steel Corporation, will he tell him of the disappointment of some steel workers in my constituency who have been made redundant and have not yet been given help with retraining or received their redundancy money, although it is well over a year since the plant closed? Can my right hon. and learned Friend speed things up a bit?

Mr. Rifkind: I shall certainly ensure that the matter is drawn to the BSC's attention, to ascertain whether some progress of the kind to which my hon. Friend has referred can be made.

Dr. Bray: Is the Secretary of State aware that Eurofer, the European steel producers association, has undertaken to propose to the European Commission by the end of March the closure of some 5 million tonnes of flat product capacity in Europe? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the chairman of Eurofer is also the chairman of the British Steel Corporation? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give an undertaking that those proposed closures will not include any reduction in capacity at the Ravenscraig or Dalzell works?

Mr. Rifkind: With regard to the Eurofer proposals, decisions on the future of any BSC works are subject to the strategy agreed in 1985. It would be for the Steel Corporation to consider in the light of that stategy what part it might play in the development of Eurofer's proposals for Europe as a whole?

Mr. Hirst: Will my right hon. and learned Friend take this opportunity to remind the House and the people of Scotland of the very welcome news recently that BSC intends to spend a further £30 million on new investment at Ravenscraig? Will he reiterate the importance of the corporation being in profit in order to find these funds for new investment?

Mr. Rifkind: The proposed £30 million investment must be good news, as one cannot seriously contemplate the closure of a plant if one is simultaneously proposing investment of that kind. I am aware that the trade unions have called for further investment in the coke ovens at Ravenscraig. I should point out that half the coke ovens should last until the turn of the century. There is good reason to believe that others will last well into the 1990s. Even the trade unions at Ravenscraig now recognise that limited reconstruction of existing ovens should overcome any shortfall in coke supplies during that period.

Mr. Dewar: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman recognise that on this side of the House we feel that the decision announced today by Caterpillar is either the result of monumental incompetence by management or soulless cynicism? There cannot be any other explanation of this astonishing turnabout in the last few months. Will he also note our sympathy, which I am sure he shares, for the 1,200 or so people and their families who are so suddenly and unexpectedly facing the dole queue? It is all the more bitter because it is so unexpected after the recent false optimism of the proposed £62 million investment. programme. Can the Secretary of State say whether any public money has been put into the firm since the announcement was made, that is, whether there is a public sector debit as a result of the announcement of that investment? If so, can he guarantee that there will be full recovery of that public money?
Can the Secretary of State also say something about what can be done to safeguard this country against such a disgraceful scuttle operation by a firm which seemed to be so firmly established—and I do not mean this in any knocking sense—that it figured in his new year message only a week ago as a firm which was becoming more profitable and competitive, so helping to make employment more secure? It is an appalling condemnation of the


firm. What has happened to face us with this about-turn? Can the Secretary of State also say something more about the moratorium on regional development plans, because it seems extraordinary that this should be announced on the day when we have suffered such a hammer blow from Caterpillar? Does it make sense to delay by even a few months much-needed funds when we are desperately trying to save jobs and build on what is left of Scotland's manufacturing base?

Mr. Rifkind: On his final point, the hon. Gentleman should realise that the proposed two-month period is half that which has been insisted on with regard to RDG 1 until now. With regard to his broader question on Caterpillar, I am not aware of any public funds that have yet been given to the company since the decision in September. Of course, we would take steps to ensure the recovery of public funds if that had happened.
I very much share the sentiments that he expressed, for the simple reason that the decision announced in September of a proposed £62 million investment was itself the result of a very extensive review that the company had carried out into its international operations. It is difficult, if not impossible, to understand any development that might have taken place in the relatively short period since September which would justify such a major change in its outlook. I have indicated to the House that I intend to have early discussions with representatives of the company. Fortunately, a significant period will elapse before the proposed closure would come into effect. Therefore, one naturally hopes that that opportunity can be used to ensure some continuation of the plant and indeed of the employment of those who depend on it.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND

Murder Trials

Mr. Robert Hughes: asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland if he will make it his policy that bereaved relations of murder victims are informed in advance of the date of the commencement of the trial.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. Peter Fraser): Procurators fiscal do give this information to bereaved relatives, but it is not done as a matter of course. The present policy is being reviewed, as my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate has stated in his letter to the hon. Gentleman dated 12 January 1987.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Solicitor-General accept that great distress was caused to my constituents when they learnt in a casual conversation with neighbours of the trial of the person accused of murdering their 16-year-old son? Does he accept that that was appalling? Does he accept that it is grossly offensive and insulting for the Lord Advocate to say that it is up to the individuals concerned to make inquiries of the procurator fiscal's office? Will he make sure that the review that is taking place will be based on making machinery available whereby bereaved relatives of murder victims will be notified automatically of the date when the trial is to take place?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I recognise that the hon. Gentleman's constituents were upset. I should explain that until recently there was probably no problem over this, inasmuch as one or more of the parents would be required to attend as witnesses to give formal evidence

of identification. For good and proper reason, we seek as best we can to avoid that happening. I want to dispel any impression that there is any deliberate policy to avoid telling parents or spouses of these matters, and it is for that reason that my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate has said that he will carry out a review to ensure that the anxieties that the hon. Gentleman expresses do not arise again.

Classified Information (Legal Proceedings)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland how, in considering possible legal proceedings arising from alleged breaches of confidentiality in relation to classified information, the Lord Advocate distinguishes between his roles as prosecutor in criminal proceedings and as nominal plaintiff in civil proceedings.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate, in deciding whether to prosecute any alleged offence relating to the disclosure of classified information, exercises a discretion as public prosecutor wholly independently of the Government. In acting in civil proceedings to restrain such disclosure, he does so on the authority of the Crown or of the appropriate public Department in terms of the Crown Suits (Scotland) Act 1857.

Mr. Dalyell: Does the Solicitor-General for Scotland find it difficult to agree that the Lord Advocate and Kerr Fraser would have made an altogether much better job than did Sir Robert Armstrong, for the Attorney-General, in the Wright case?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I share the hon. Gentleman's views of the abilities of Sir William Kerr Fraser. It would be entirely wrong, however, for me to draw any comparisons between him and Sir Robert Armstrong.

Mr. Foulkes: Will the Solicitor-General for Scotland say in how many instances either he or the Lord Advocate has had to take no part in legal proceedings because of a conflict of interest or because of some other activity that he or his noble and learned Friend undertakes, such as being a Commissioner of Northern Lighthouses? Is the example that I have given an isolated one, or are there a number of different areas of public offices or other activities where the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General for Scotland have a conflict of roles?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I cannot think immediately of any other situation where there might be a conflict of interest. In the instance to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, I am not entirely sure that there was a conflict of interest. To avoid any apparent disagreement or any apparent indication that we had acted with some impropriety, both my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate and I declined to take any part in the case to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.

Salmon Act 1986

Sir Hector Monro: asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland if he has had discussions with procurators fiscal on the implementation of the poaching clause in the Salmon Act 1986; and if he will make a statement.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: While I have not discussed this provision with procurators fiscal, a Crown Office circular has been issued to them dealing with the implementation of the Act in general.

Sir Hector Monro: Having enjoyed some poached salmon today with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland with responsibility for fisheries, may I ask my hon. and learned Friend to bear in mind the importance of salmon fishing to the tourist industry and to the the development of hotels in Scotland? Will he bring home to procurators fiscal and all involved that we must take a tough line with poachers if we are to achieve advancement in this area?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, and I am sure he is aware that the Salmon Act 1986 came into force last week. It is for that reason that my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate, myself and the Crown Office have brought to the attention of procurators fiscal what is contained within the Act and made it clear to them that the provisions that deal with what might be described now as the statutory reset of poached salmon should be implemented wherever appropriate.

Mr. Canavan: Given the draconian penalties laid down in the Salmon Act 1986, which mean that someone who is in possesion of a salmon in certain circumstances can be sent to prison for two years, and to avoid any accusations that the Crown Office is less than even-handed, will the Solicitor-General for Scotland assure ordinary working-class poachers who take an occasional salmon for the pot that they will get off with a friendly warning from the procurator fiscal in the same way as the Duke of Argyll and his cronies, who have been net fishing illegally for years in Loch Fyne and getting away with it scot-free?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The hon. Gentleman should be aware, as everyone else is, of the importance of salmon fishing to the tourist industry in Scotland. He should not think, even in a casual and half-comical fashion, that there is anything funny about the level of poaching in Scotland's rivers, which is causing real problems. If the hon. Gentleman would like to move away from the central belt occasionally and travel to the east coast of Scotland, the north-east or into the Highlands, he would learn of the serious effect that poaching and the prevalence of it has had on the tourist industry.

Mr. Kennedy: What does the Solicitor-General for Scotland think of the apparent complacency with which the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland accepts the fact that its own recently published figures show that 14 per cent. of Scottish salmon fishery owners in the country did not even bother to submit, as they were legally supposed to do, return forms for their catches? Is the hon. and learned Gentleman concerned about that illegality, to which the Department is turning a blind eye?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: One person who did make a return to the Department on that matter was the Duke of Argyll. However, if the proprietors of salmon fisheries are not making the appropriate returns, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that that is essentially a matter for my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. MacKay).

Dangerous Driving

Mr. Michael Forsyth: asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland what is the average length of time which elapses between charges being made for dangerous driving and an appearance in court.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: This information is not readily available. Procurators fiscal take a serious view of cases of reckless driving and give them as much priority as their local circumstances permit.

Mr. Forsyth: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware of the distress being caused to relatives—especially in cases in which near relations have been involved in fatal accidents—by the considerable delays being experienced in my constituency?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I am aware of one case in my hon. Friend's constituency about which he is concerned and which he has discussed with me. However, I advise him that the case is now before the courts and, as it is sub-judice, I can say nothing further about it.

Sir Russell Johnston: Does the Solicitor-General for Scotland agree that it would be a good and sensible thing if those who are responsible for trying driving cases, especially dangerous driving cases, which involve objective, professional and technical judgment, at least had a driving qualification of some kind themselves?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Although in general I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, if that principle were applied broadly across the criminal law field only those who had committed fraud and who had an understanding of how to do so would decide and judge such cases. Generally speaking, we require people with some intelligence and some experience, but above all, we need to see that those who judge act fairly and without prejudice.

Mr. Tom Clarke: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Arising out of questions?

Mr. Clarke: No.

Mr. Speaker: Later, please.

Mr. Bruce: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, arising out of questions.
I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on question No. 7, which concerned the proposed merger between the Aberdeen and Dundee colleges of education. I came into questions specifically to raise a matter on that question which has direct relevance to my constituency. I should appreciate your help, Mr. Speaker, on the normal convention of the House. I have been led to believe that if a question is of direct relevance to a Member's constituency that Member will normally be called, especially in circumstances such as today, when I was the only representative—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is questioning my authority on that matter. I must advise him that I allowed a good run on that question and that I must balance both sides of the House, and all the parties in the House. The hon. Gentleman will find that a member of his own party was called to ask a question.

Television Licence Fees

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about decisions on certain parts of the Peacock report on broadcasting which the House debated on 20 November 1986.
We accept the judgment of the Peacock committee that the BBC should not be financed through advertising and that, for the time being, the licence fee should remain the principal source of income. As the House knows, we have commissioned an expert study of the technical and economic feasibility of subscription which, in principle, we find attractive. We should receive that in the spring, but it is, in any case, clear, as Professor Peacock noted, that that form of funding could not be introduced for some years.
I have already announced that the colour licence fee will remain at £58 until March 1988. We have decided that thereafter it should be indexed to move annually in line with the retail price index. That will provide secure and predictable funding for the BBC consistent with the principle of its constitutional independence. Increases in the licence fee will in future be determined on precisely the same basis as increases in pensions and benefits. As Peacock proposed, the new colour licence fee will be calculated on a notional licence fee for 1987–88 of £60. In April 1988 the fee will be increased by an amount which reflects the percentage annual change in the retail prices index as measured at October 1987. Given the past tendency of BBC costs to rise faster than inflation, this form of indexation will provide a strong incentive to practise efficiency and care in undertaking fresh commitments. The Government see the new arrangements I have announced today as lasting for at least three years from April 1988; any departure from them should be wholly exceptional and for clearly stated reasons.
We believe that people should have the option of receiving black and white television and taking out a significantly cheaper licence. Accordingly, despite Peacock's suggestion that the monochrome licence fee might be brought closer to that of the colour licence, we have decided that the monochrome fee should remain at broadly its present level. It will therefore be indexed on the basis I have described, starting from a notional base line of £20 and continuing to provide a cheaper alternative licence.
We have looked again at the arguments for concessionary licences. We are satisfied that there are overwhelming objections both on principle and on grounds of practicability to the Peacock committee's proposal that pensioners drawing supplementary pensions should be exempt from the licence fee if they live in households wholly dependent on a pension. We reject Peacock's suggestion which envisaged financing this proposal through a separate car radio licence. In the light of those decisions, we have decided to keep the existing arrangements for concessionary licences for those in residential care.
We accept in principle the Peacock committee's view that the BBC should be given a bigger role in collecting the licence fee. We have doubts about its specific proposal that the BBC should act as a managing agent, on a consultative basis, to the Home Office because we think that that might

lead to a confusion of responsibilities. While the Government will clearly need to determine the level of the licence fee and any concessionary arrangements, we believe, subject to study of the detailed implications, that the BBC should become directly responsible for collecting this revenue and for enforcing the licence fee system. The BBC's board of governors accepts in principle the merits of this approach. We shall be exploring together the detailed implications so that we can propose later any necessary changes in the law.
We are anxious that those wanting a television licence should have available, and be fully aware of, convenient means of paying for it. Since the last settlement, the Home Office, in consultation with the BBC and the Post Office, has carried out a thorough review of existing methods and examined possible new methods of payment. As a result, both we and the BBC see attractions in arrangements under which licences could be issued on a pay-as-you-go basis—at present, as the House knows, the licence fee has to be paid in full in advance. We shall be considering further with the BBC how that could be put into practice. meanwhile, we intend to make the public better aware of the various schemes that already exist for payment. We aim to increase convenience of payment for the consumer; to help those in financial difficulty to spread the cost of the fee; to minimise enforcement and administration costs; to reduce the levels of evasion and late payment; and to enable the BBC to maximise its revenue while keeping the cost of the licence fee down.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: We note with satisfaction that the Government have abandoned any idea of imposing advertising on the BBC. However, on another aspect of his statement, the Home Secretary has been less precise and less forthright. He tells us that after March 1988 the licence increase will be on a notional base of £60. However, he does not spell out exactly what that means for licence holders. Does it mean that on 1 April 1988 the Government intend to put up the licence fee by £2 to £60 and, at the same time, add to that a cost of living increase of up to £3? Will the Home Secretary deny that if I am mistaken? If I am not mistaken, will the right hon. Gentleman admit that the Government are planning what they hope will be a post-election increase in the licence of £5 a year on 1 April next year? It is important that the country should know whether that is what the Government are planning.
What about pensioners? The Home Secretary has accepted the Peacock proposal for an indexed television licence based on a figure of £60. But one integral ingredient of that proposal was free television licences for pensioner households drawing supplementary benefit, yet the Home Secretary has meanly rejected that recommendation. He picks and chooses among the Peacock recommendations, accepting those that suit him and rejecting another that would help the poor.
The Labour party believes that the financing of the BBC should be re-examined in a way that seeks to address itself to the problem of the licence as a regressive poll tax. Meanwhile, the Labour party makes it absolutely clear and reaffirms its commitment to phase out the television licence for all pensioners. [HON. MEMBERS: "How much?"] I am coming to that. We consider that public expenditure to be a far more socially compassionate use of public money than squandering £164 million of taxpayers' money on the selling off of British Gas.

Mr. Hurd: As regards the right hon. Gentleman's first question, in October 1987 the sums will be done to calculate the rise in the retail prices index between September 1986 and September 1987, in exactly the same way as happens for pensions and other benefits. From April 1988 that calculation will be applied in addition to the notional fee of £60. The amount of the increase will depend on the Government's continuing success in resisting the efforts of the Labour party to push up inflation.
I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman asked his question because it enables me to make it clear that by April 1988 the BBC will be spending at substantially above the level of the £60 licence fee. We shall be applying a double squeeze—a once-and-for-all squeeze, inasmuch as we have chosen a notional figure of £60 and not a higher figure, although the BBC will be spending at a higher figure, and a continuous squeeze inasmuch as we have chosen for the index the retail prices index and not the higher index that the BBC tended to favour, because its costs have been historically high. There will be a double squeeze—a once-and-for-all squeeze, and a continuous squeeze on the spending of the BBC in order to relieve the licence payer from excessive increases.
On the right hon. Gentleman's second point, I notice that, in an incoherent way, the Labour party is set on the path that he describes. The policy that he announces from the Front Bench is different from the policy that the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) may have an opportunity to develop on Friday. Both are a deeply incompetent attempt at a bribe, as the debate on Friday will reveal. Once people have got over the immediate dazzle of the proposition, they will reach the same conclusion as the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan), a former Prime Minister and Home Secretary—that it is not a sensible use of social security money that elderly well-to-do people should suddenly receive free television. That is not an adequate or sensible way of spending the limited resources available for social security. The right hon. Gentleman has totally failed to explain how the £230 million, or £330 million, would be found, and we look forward to further exploration of that rather important point.

Mr. Leon Brittan: Will my right hon. Friend accept that the vast majority of people who have considered this matter will welcome the Government's decision that there should be indexation on what I hope will be an interim basis until the problems relating to the introduction of subscription as a means of financing the BBC have been resolved? Will he also accept that the principle of indexation will provide the BBC with a certain income, will encourage efficiency and will, I hope, also encourage the BBC to work towards the resolution of the problems relating to subscription which will provide a long-term answer to the BBC's problems?

Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend, and I agree with him. The form of indexation that we have chosen is intended to be a reasonable squeeze on the BBC's revenues and, therefore, a reasonable protection for the licence holder. When we see the report of the expert study in the spring we shall be able to judge more clearly the merits of an approach towards subscription as a substitute for the licence and, perhaps equally important, the pace at which it is reasonable to move in that direction.

Mr. Clement Freud: It would have been absurdly optimistic for the BBC to have expected more support or understanding from the Government, but the Home Secretary must realise that indexing the new licence fee to the retail prices index is unsatisfactory bearing in mind the cost of wages, which far outstrip the retail prices index. We welcome the fact that he has ignored the Peacock recommendations in respect of monochrome licences. We welcome the fact that that fee will be pegged and we hope that it will be pegged even below £20.
It is sensible to let the BBC bring in its own procedure for collecting the licence fee, but we hope that that will not inhibit the Home Secretary from finding, before that becomes a fact, new ways of establishing instalments and other simple devices for paying licence fees for people who cannot afford them.

Mr. Hurd: It will be interesting as the debate continues over the coming months to learn how much higher the licence fee which the Liberal and Labour parties would propose to the BBC would be than the one which we suggest on the basis of indexation. The hon. Gentleman, from his knowledge of these matters, which is substantial, understands the nature of the squeeze that we are proposing, but I ask him not to get entirely hooked on the idea that, simply because the costs of an institution, even a famous institution, have historically risen higher than the RPI, we should accept as God-given that such increases must continue.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: I welcome my right hon. Friend's decision that the licence fee should remain the principal source of the BBC's income and what appears to be his sensible proposal for the indexation of that fee. However, will my right hon. Friend spell out in clear terms the cost of the Labour party's commitment that everybody of pensionable age should, apparently, be allowed a free television licence? It seems that that would be an enormous expense on those who pay the licence fee. Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to spell out that cost?

Mr. Hurd: The cost of the official Labour programme, as repeated by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), would be £330 million. The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), with uncharacteristic modesty, has a more limited programme which would knock £100 million off that figure. His proposal would be impractical to administer, but it would cost £230 million instead of £330 million. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) has made it clear that additional taxation would not he available to finance this. He has also warned against proposing that it could be done by extra borrowing. Therefore, we are forced to conclude that these substantial sums would be found either by loading them on the other licence holders or by cutting the social security budget in other respects.

Mr. Chris Smith: Early in his remarks the Home Secretary said that the Government viewed the proposal for subscription payment for BBC television as an attractive option in principle. However, would it not be nonsense to have two channels available on subsription while other channels were available free at the point of delivery and funded by


advertising? Will he consider again the difficulties which would be attendant upon the introduction of subscription television?

Mr. Hurd: We shall have an opportunity to consider the advantages and disadvantages when we have the consultants' report, but the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) should not over-egg this argument. We think that there is a powerful attraction in supposing that, instead of the existing licence fee, which will look odder and odder as time goes on and more and more channels are available, there might be a different system whereby people can, as they do in other respects in their daily lives, pay for what they choose to receive and not everything else.

Sir Paul Bryan: Am I right in assuming that the Labour Party proposals would mean that non-pensioners would be paying about £90 a year for their licence? Will the BBC be responsible for collecting the licence and will it be able to put the agency out to tender on competitive terms?

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend's question is among the details that we are discussing with the BBC. At present, the collection is done by the Post Office and in the past, there have been all sorts of suggestions and criticisms of that arrangement. If we reach an agreement with the BBC on lines that I have discussed, I am sure that the BBC would wish to consider various possibilities including continuing the arrangement with the Post Office.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right on his first point. If it is suggested that the cost of the scheme—the bribe—should be loaded on the existing licence holders, it is likely that the increase would be that suggested by my hon. Friend. I suspect that what the Opposition have in mind is that this figure should get lost in the general mish-mash of their financial policies and that they will seek to avoid a definite answer as to how and at whose expense the money is to be found.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: Is the Home Secretary telling Sid that the licence fee will go up by £5 next year? Why is he perpetuating a poll tax system whereby the Savoy hotel, charging £100 a night for a single bedroom, pays for only one licence fee for 15 television sets and Harrods pays only a small fee for exhibiting several hundered sets? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that 1 million people do not and cannot pay their television licences because they never see £58 in a lump sum? Why will not the right hon. Gentleman implement the considered proposals of the Peacock committee and bring relief to hard-up pensioners?

Mr. Hurd: I do not think that the Peacock committee proposals, which are much more limited than those of the Labour party, would be administratively possible. The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that we should abandon the licence fee principle, but his party is saying that we should continue with the licence fee principle—to which it seems much more devoted than myself—but that we should differentiate and give a special subsidy and free television to elderly people regardless of their means and regardless of the fact that a large number of people are substantially worse off than a high proportion of pensioners.

Mr. John Wheeler: Although I welcome what my right hon. Friend has said and I entirely endorse his statement, will he give the House a little more information about pensioner incomes? Approximately one-third of pensioners live above the national income level. Would it be entirely fair if the licence fee was loaded on to all other existing licence fee payers, many of whom are one-parent families?

Mr. Hurd: I am sure that that would be unfair. The precise fact for which my hon. Friend is searching is that 35 per cent. of pensioners—rather more than one-third—are represented in the three upper-fifths of national income distribution. That makes absolute nonsense of the Opposition's approach.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: Is this not yet another step in the Government's vendetta against the BBC and their intention of cutting down the BBC? Does not the right hon. Gentleman understand that the costs of advanced broadcasting technology are inevitably bound to rise faster than the RPI and that the effects of his policy will be damaging—which is his intention—and deleterious to the work of the BBC?

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman's first step should be to do something to educate his own and the Liberal Front Bench because they have been sniping in a populist way at the proposal for indexation on the ground that it will be too high. The hon. Gentleman knows that it will be a substantial squeeze and therefore a substantial protection for the licence holder.
I shall repeat what I have said. We should be very wary of assuming that past cost increases were justified or of seeing them as eternal. The hon. Gentleman knows the problem that the BBC has had with its costs. The other system also has a severe problem. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the BBC is now making strenuous efforts, under its present leadership, to reduce its costs, and its stand in relation to the electricians' strike is part of that.
I believe that the Government should encourage the BBC in that effort by making it clear that the money which is available is compatible only with a considerable squeeze on costs. Moreover, I do not believe that the BBC should hold the idea that it must automatically leap first into any new venture without regard to the cost because it is afraid that someone else may come up with that idea.

Mr. Roger Gale: When does my right hon. Friend intend to ensure that every television receiver sold in the United Kingdom carries a built-in encryption unit so that when the move comes, as it inevitably will do, to subscription television, that will be technically possible?

Mr. Hurd: I know of my hon. Friend's enthusiasm for subscription television. However, we shall wait for the consultants' report as we shall then be able to judge whether that Peacock recommendation should be carried into effect, and, if so, how and at what speed.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: Does the Secretary of State realise that rather ignobly, because we might have hoped for better from him, he has shown himself to be suffering from the Tebbit syndrome, which means, when in difficulties bash the BBC? He has just enunciated a formula for slow strangulation, because the costs of technology rise more rapidly than the retail prices index. If we are to avoid the slow contraction of services, an erosion of quality, and a slow electronic rigor mortis,


the right hon. Gentleman will have to find revenues to supplement the licence fee—such as a point of sale tax on video tape recorders—and will have to end the present regressive policy by freeing the licence fee for pensioners, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) has proposed.

Mr. Hurd: Once again, the hon. Gentleman is contradicting his own Front Bench, because it says that the licence fee increase is too much whereas he says that it is too little. He is right, as his hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) was right, to say that what we propose amounts to a squeeze. However, it is a squeeze in support of what the BBC is now trying to do. Consequently, I am not criticising or bashing the BBC. It is now making a manful effort to get its costs under control and to bring itself into the modern world in that regard. We want to help the BBC in its efforts.

Sir Dudley Smith: Is there not something terribly anachronistic about a system which in the foreseeable future will mean that many hard-pressed old-age pensioners will be forced to pay a compulsory BBC levy when, in other circumstances, they could watch the two ITV channels for nothing and elect in due course to pay a subscription fee, if they so wished, to the BBC?

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend has succinctly put the case for subscription and for the philosophy lying behind the main recommendation in the Peacock report. We believe that if that recommendation is to be persuasive and effective it needs more back-up than it receives in the report, and so we have asked the consultants for a further report. When we receive it in the spring, we shall be able to reopen the discussion.

Mr. David Winnick: Is the Secretary of State aware that in refusing to make any concessions he has today demonstrated a cruel indifference to many of our elderly people? A large majority of them are on low incomes and they rely on the television as their sole form of entertainment and many use it, as Peacock stated in his report, as a link to the outside world. I have received many letters from constituents of Conservative Members on this subject and I should like to know whether it is true that all Ministers have been told to be in the House on Friday to vote down my Bill.

Mr. Hurd: What rubbish this is! In a way I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to develop his case and that we shall have an opportunity to refute it later this week. The Labour party has wholly failed to explain where the money to finance that concession or the more extravagant concessions sought by the Opposition Front Bench is to come from, and so we must assume that there will be competition with other social security payments.
The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and his hon. Friends must develop the case that this proposition should be top of the queue, as it is wholly unrelated to need and there are so many other demands on the social security budget at present. A large proportion of the concession will go untaxed to well-off members of the community. The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends will have to make the unmakeable case that the concession is a satisfactory priority for the social security budget.

Mr. Roy Galley: My right hon. Friend is to be congratulated on his measured and sensible approach

to the Peacock report. Will he assure the House that he will put considerable umph behind the proposals for a feasible subscription system and that he will then bring positive proposals to the House? We must find an alternative to the ludicrous licence fee system, because the majority of people are fed up with paying such an enormous fee for a regular diet of old films, repeats, American soap and biased current affairs programmes.

Mr. Hurd: The licence fee system was perfectly natural when the BBC had a monopoly. It has been tolerable during the era of the duopoly in which we still live. Like my hon. Friend, I think that it is beginning to creak quite noisily as we move into a time of possible wider choice. But before we abandon the system we must be clear that there is an alternative that makes sense. We may have found one, but it is still too soon to be absolutely clear. I take note of the point made by several of my hon. Friends that the House will wish to discuss that point again when the consultants report is published.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is it not fair to say that a Government who refuse even properly to heat the homes of millions of pensioners is hardly the sort of Government that would be receptive to the principle of free television licences for pensioners? When the Minister tells us that the Government do not have the money to do that, will he give us an assurance that there will be no tax cuts in the Budget which is due in two months time? Will he assure us that there will be no cuts in the standard rate of income tax, in the capital transfer tax or in capital gains tax? That is where the money is. The Minister knows that he has it, but he refuses to use it to help Britain's pensioners. He should be ashamed of himself.

Mr. Hurd: I refuse to accept that it makes sense in terms of social security benefits for the old and those in need to put at the top of the queue and establish as a priority the giving of free television to elderly people, regardless of their circumstances and need. That is nonsense and it will be rapidly seen as such as the debate proceeds.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the income from the licence fee is about £1,000 million a year? Does he recognise that there is considerable disquiet, and not only on this side of the House, that such a large sum of money that is acquired by compulsion can be disbursed by an organisation that is virtually unaccountable except when it is brought to account through the courts? Why should the BBC uniquely have a secure and predictable income that is not enjoyed by the independent broadcasting companies?
Will my right hon. Friend also confirm that the sale of programmes contributes little more than 1 per cent. of the BBC's total income? If the BBC wishes to increase its resources and it is as good as it says it is, why does it not sell more programmes?

Mr. Hurd: I am entirely in favour of the BBC trying to improve and diversify its sources of income in the way my hon. Friend has suggested. He is unpicking the BBC's charter, as several of my hon. Friends would wish to do, and the form of responsibility that exists between the BBC and the House. The time will come—although it is not immediate—when the charter must be renewed and those matters will come up for discussion. We are concerned more immediately with the basis of financing the BBC and whether it is possible to move from the


licence fee system, with all the criticisms made of it, towards a system of subscription based on individual choice.

Mr. Tony Benn: Is the Home Secretary aware that by rejecting all concessions he has, in effect, said that after the general election pensioners, among others, will pay £5 a year more for the licence? Does he really believe that people think that commercial television costs them nothing when the consumers, many of whom are pensioners, pay for it and when all advertising budgets are tax deductible and therefore the taxpayers, many of whom are pensioners, pay for it? The Home Secretary's statement is an attack upon the group that my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) intends to protect.

Mr. Hurd: The only thing to be said for the hon. Member for Walsall, North is that he has never held office in a Government.
Having looked at the concessionary system and the proposals for improving it, I have come to exactly the same conclusion as the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues did when they were in office.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend accept that my mother and my mother-in-law, of whom I am inordinately fond, would very much enjoy a free television licence, but is it not nonsense to subsidise people by age group alone? Is not the proper use of public money to use it where it will do most good? To subsidise those who do not need it deprives people who need state and taxpayers' help.

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is entirely right. I agree with his premise and his conclusion.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Home Secretary aware that he has not paid any attention to the argument put forward on this issue, that there are countless hundreds of thousands of pensioners who live in warden-controlled accommodation and who get a relatively free television licence?
The Labour party and my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) will try on Friday to bring about some equality under the law so that every pensioner is treated properly. One thing is certain from the Home Secretary's remarks today. Hugo Young just about got it right in respect of the chairman of the Tory party. What he got wrong was that he did not apply it to the entire Government Front Bench, including himself.

Mr. Hurd: I do not think that anyone is entirely happy with the existing concessionary scheme that was introduced by the last Labour Government and which we have expanded by bringing in, in 1984, handicapped and disabled people.
As with winter heating, although on a lesser scale, we have taken what we inherited and made it somewhat more substantial. However one expands this housing-based concession, there will be borderline cases and difficulties. We have considered the matter carefully, but we have concluded that the best way is to continue with the present limited concession.

Mr. Tony Marlow: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will have looked at various proposals for the financing and control of the BBC. I think

that it has been suggested that there should be established a Ministry of arts and media, hence to be known as the Ministry of Culture and Propaganda. Originally that would be without the BBC, but knowing the nature of the proposals of such a Ministry inevitably the BBC would come within its ambit. Could my right hon. Friend tell the House, and particularly the Labour party, why that would not be an appropriate solution?

Mr. Hurd: I have noticed that there has been commotion in the shadow kingdom on this subject and I had mixed feelings when I read today that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Garton (Mr. Kaufman) had unhorsed the challenger who was attempting to take away part of his shadow fief. It is a shadowy business, as my hon. Friend would acknowledge.
For what it is worth, it is on the whole better, regardless naturally of all personalities, that the Shadow Home Office fief should resemble the accurate one as represented by the Home Secretary.

Mr. Dave Nellist: Is the Home Secretary aware that Britain's 10 million pensioners will view this week in Westminster with a slight degree of incredulity? Yesterday, paid for through a cut in the real value of their pension, the Government said: "Here is a fiver." That is wholly inadequate to pay towards the heating of their homes. Today they are saying, "An extra fiver will go on your television licence?" Yesterday the pensioners were told that it was a choice between food and fuel. Today it will be a choice between food and entertainment. Is that really the future that the Tory Government offer Britain's 10 million pensioners?

Mr. Hurd: Pensioners are not so simple or silly as the hon. Member appears to make out. They know that in the lifetime of this Government there has been a 25 per cent. increase in real terms in spending on pensions. They will know from their experience how to weigh in the balance the sort of shallow half promises being tossed about by the Labour party.

Mr. Richard Ottaway: As the BBC easily won the ratings war over the Christmas period, with eight programmes in the top 10, will my right hon. Friend accept that he is quite right to resist claims that funding of the BBC be at parity with ITV, as such extra funding is totally superfluous?

Mr. Hurd: I think that, on the whole, my hon. Friend commends the balance that we have tried to strike. If that is what he is doing, I agree with him.

Mr. Peter Hardy: The Home Secretary appeared to reject the idea that concessions should be given to pensioners. Will he confirm that the present concessionary system will be maintained? If he does, will he accept that, in those areas in which local authorities have a splendid record in building and providing accommodation for the elderly, the grievous anomalies are particularly intense? Will the right hon. Gentleman make sure that the point that he made to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) is properly sustained? He said that my hon. Friends wil have to deploy arguments to convince the Government about the merits of the Bill on Friday. Have not the Government already made up their mind regardless of the case that my hon. Friends will make?

Mr. Hurd: I will welcome the debate because it will show the hollowness of the pretensions of Opposition Members. The hon. Gentleman's first point is entirely right. The present concessionary scheme that we inherited and, as I have said, expanded to include the handicapped and disabled is patchy. It produces anomalies that are particularly severe in some parts of the country. We have tried hard to find a neater, tidier way of spending roughly the same amount—£22 million. We have not found a neater way to avoid creating new anomalies. Therefore, I confirm that we have decided to maintain the present scheme.

Mr. Richard Holt: I welcome what my right hon. Friend has said. I am sorry that the Government have rejected advertising as such out of hand. There is advertising every day on the BBC. Every sporting organisation that is sponsored by a commercial organisation receives money not because of philanthropy but because the commercial organisation wishes to advertise as widely as possible to the widest audience. There is no mechanical reason why this could not be done in the same way as money is collected for the Performing Right Society.

Mr. Hurd: Evidently, the BBC draws a distinction between advertising and sponsorship. As my hon. Friend may know, it is exploring and putting forward ideas for a limited range of sponsorship. The BBC has been in touch with us about that matter. It is its initiative. We shall be interested to see how its thinking develops on this matter.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall call the hon. Gentlemen who have been standing. I ask for questions on this statement and not the speeches that might be made tomorrow.

Dr. Jeremy Bray: Does the Home Secretary think that the public wish to see a reducing proportion of national income available to the BBC?

Mr. Hurd: So long as the licence fee system continues, the public will welcome a system that provides the BBC with an income that will rise in the same way, to the same extent and on the same dates as pensions and social security benefits. They will find that a much more reasonable proposition than others to which they may have to listen.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that his statement puts the BBC in a uniquely privileged position? Not only does it have a guaranteed income but it is protected against inflation, regardless of its ability to satisfy consumers. Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the necessary changes in the structure of the BBC will be made to ensure that it is able to meet its obligations under the charter and thereby do something in return for this privilege?

Mr. Hurd: I assure my hon. Friend that the BBC will not regard today's announcement in anything like the same way as he does. The BBC clearly will see, as various questions have illustrated, the substantial double squeeze on its income—first, the once-for-all choice of the base line, and, secondly, the RPI indexation as opposed to indexation of relative costs, as Mr. Samuel Brittan and others rather surprisingly suggested. The squeeze is

intended to support and underpin the efforts that my hon. Friend and I strongly welcome being made by the BBC to bring its costs under effective control.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Was the Home Secretary being any more than polite to the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Galley) when he agreed with what he said and, in particular, rather threateningly said that the BBC was creaking? I remind the right hon. Gentleman of a cautionary little tale. When the late Reggie Bevins was Postmaster-General, in answer to questions he said he would do something about the BBC and "That Was The Week That Was". Reggie Bevins, when he went to his desk the following morning, found a little note on it. The little note said, "Oh no, you won't." It was signed "Harold."

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman is uncharacteristically inaccurate. It was not the BBC but the licence fee system for financing it, which I said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Galley), seemed to be beginning to creak.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Will my right hon. Friend accept that today's announcement will be seen outside as a victory for the BBC and, therefore, is most disappointing? Does he agree that the House seriously hoped that the licence fee would have been reduced rather than linked to an inflation increase and that the remainder would have been made up by advertising? Does he agree that the pay-as-you-view system is unlikely to succeed at the moment anyway because, as hon. Members have said before, there have been so many repeats? Please, may we reconsider this and again examine advertising?

Mr. Hurd: If my hon. Friend believes that that is how this announcement will be regarded by the BBC or others, he will believe anything. On the whole, the debate on 20 November supported the Peacock conclusion on advertising. There was hardly a whisper in the whole of the debate criticising that particular Peacock recommendation which, as I said, on examination the Government found to be cogent.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: How can a Government, who have cut the real value of the pension by £8 a week since they came to office, while handing out £3·6 billion to the richest 5 per cent. in the country, refuse 14,000 pensioners in my constituency, most of whom are poor, some concession on their television licence fee? The Government must bear in mind that those pensioners are fully aware that many of the right hon. Gentleman's rich friends who permanently reside in luxury hotels and west end clubs get their television viewing free all the year round.

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman may know that I tightened up the rules about hotels and television licences when I was Minister of State because I thought it was needed. The hon. Gentleman will not succeed in persuading his elderly constituents that the right way to spend £230 million, or £330 million, of social security money is to give free television licences to elderly dowagers and elderly people across the country regardless of need.

Mr. Bill Michie: As questions on the statement draw to a close, will the Home Secretary make it clear to the House whether he intends to organise opposition to the Bill to be presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) on Friday?

Mr. Hurd: That is not a matter for me.

Mr. Kaufman: Have not two clear facts emerged from the Home Secretary's attempt to create a smoke screen this afternoon? First, the Government are planning a £5 licence increase for all television viewers on 1 April next year. Secondly, the Government oppose the Labour policy of phasing out television licences for all pensioners. The Labour party will be happy for the country to choose between those two policies.

Mr. Hurd: It has emerged clearly in this agreeable prelude to Friday's debate that some Opposition Members think that we are squeezing the BBC intolerably. Other hon. Members believe that we are giving far too much to the BBC and that an increase based on indexation is too generous. What we have set forward will appear to be sensible to sensible people—that while the licence system continues, the BBC, rather than having the occasional arbitrary increase that occurred in the past, should have a system of indexation that will provide a once-for-all squeeze when it is introduced in 1988, and then a continuing squeeze on costs that will show the direction in which it should go.

Guinness plc

Mr. Tom Clarke: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that some weeks ago I endeavoured to draw the attention of the House to the number of job losses in my constituency arising from the Guinness takeover. I seek your guidance principally because in today's issue of The Independent there are two articles, the first of which is headed, "£200m Guinness slush fund" and the second:
Guinness's second secret Boesky link".
—[Interruption.] With great respect, the House is aware that you, Mr. Speaker, not individual Members, rule whether a matter is in order.
These important articles tell us that a Department of Trade and Industry inquiry is being undertaken at present, but no formal indication of that matter has been given to the House. The House knows how well you seek to protect our interests. How can an hon. Member find out from the

Department of Trade and Industry precisely what is taking place about job losses and broken promises, and how we can bring these matters into the public domain?
I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for listening to what I have had to say. I seek your advice most sincerely on how this most important matter can be pursued.

Mr. Robin Cook: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention to the fact that today the board of Guinness received a full report on the Department of Trade and Industry's inquiry? We understand that tomorrow the shareholders are to receive a special statement on the inquiry. We read that the Prime Minister has already received a private presentation of the report of the inquiry. The only interested body which, apparently, is not to be favoured with a statement is Parliament. May I urge you to reflect overnight whether Parliament can continue to command respect if it is not given the opportunity to consider a matter of daily press comment which relates to the biggest city scandal for generations and involves a slush fund which is big enough to enable us to double the fuel payments proposed by the Government?

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is some difficulty in raising this matter in the House for two reasons which you should bear in mind, especially as we can discuss most issues properly. First, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is unable to speak on this issue because of the close association of his family with the whole affair. [HON. MEMBERS: "Disgraceful."] That causes other difficulties. As the investigation has been set up in such a way that it will continue beyond the general election, we are unable to discuss the matter even with junior Ministers. How can you assist the House to enable the matter to be discussed?

Mr. Eric Forth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If the matter had the urgency and importance claimed by the Opposition, would you not allow them to change yet again the subject for today's debate so that they could raise this matter properly? Would you allow them to do that if they asked?

Mr. Speaker: The proper way to deal with the matter is to table questions to the Department. That is what hon. Members should do.

Members' Correspondence

Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have received many letters regarding my Bill on Friday, some of which have been dealt with by my secretary and some by the Library. This is part of the support campaign by the Daily Star—[Laughter.] Tory Members' constituents who write to me do not consider it to be a laughing matter.—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. What has this to do with me?

Mr. Winnick: I am asking you, Sir, whether there is any arrangement—[Interruption.] If hon. Gentlemen would shut up for a moment, I could continue. Are there any arrangements whereby authorities in the House could ensure that the increasing number of letters that have been sent to me instead of to the hon. Member concerned could be distributed accordingly by Friday?

Mr. Speaker: I cannot think that that falls anywhere within my responsibilities.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS &c.

Ordered,
That the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (No. 10) Order 1986 (S.I., 1986, No. 2248) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Durant.]

Late Payment of Debts

Mr. Allan Stewart: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a legally enforceable system of penalties on late payment of debts.
The problems created by the late payments of debts, particularly to small firms and the self-employed, are widely agreed by hon. Members and business organisations outside the House to be widespread and serious. The House will recall that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Ottaway) introduced on 8 April 1986 a ten-minute Bill on the right to interest, which has been reintroduced this Session. My hon. Friend has worked tirelessly to highlight the need for action on this problem; for example, the debate that he initiated on 24 July and early-day motion 63, which has been signed by more than 100 hon. Members on both sides of the House. My hon. Friend also took part in a press conference on 18 November at which the hon. Members for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), representing the Labour party, and for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth), representing the SDP, spoke about the problem.
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment has done an immense amount of work on the problem since he took office. Last year he introduced a code of practice entitled "Payment on time", and I congratulate him on that. It shows his and the Government's concern. Nevertheless, the problem of the voluntary code is self-evident: it has no teeth to ensure universal compliance. My case is that there needs to be legislative change to support the code.
Obviously, the law differs in some respects north and south of the border. But it is astonishing that despite a Law Commission report in 1978, recommending that contract debts should carry a statutory right to interest save where parties otherwise agree, the La Pintada case confirmed that under the Administration of Justice Act 1982 interest does not run before proceedings for recovery of the principal sum have begun.
My hon. Friend's Bill would establish a legally enforceable right to interest on late payment of debts. I would add to that, first, the need to ensure that the Scottish position is fully covered. Secondly, I would propose to limit the new rights of interest to individuals, partnerships and private limited companies. That would answer the Government's criticism that legislation might be used by large companies to the detriment of small companies and the self-employed. Thirdly, the long title of my Bill is sufficiently wide to enable the Government to introduce supplementary proposals in Committee, if they wish.
The problem is certainly widespread. In a survey in November, the Forum of Private Business suggested that Britain's small businesses were owed an estimated £57 billion—£5 billion in Scotland. The problems that result are not only those of cash flow, which inhibits growth, investment and job creation. The problems can create serious personal strain. The Confederation of British Industry (Scotland) recently described the practice as amounting
to pernicious and dishonest trading.
A CBI survey in November 1985 showed that 81 per cent. of firms replying said that late payment problems were a


general burden in terms of the extra costs incurred and management time wasted, and that 11 per cent. suffered serious set-backs attributable to late payments.
Hon. Members will have cases from their own constituencies. My hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst) told me of some earlier today. In my constituency a small firm came to see me last week with a problem so severe that it had gone to a debt collector. That has not helped, so now it must sue the debt collector. A business man told me that more than 50 per cent. of his time must be devoted to this problem. In Renfrewshire, Rathoprint closed because big firms would not pay in time.
The problem is becoming worse. Sixty-one per cent. of the CBI survey believed that standards had declined over the past 10 years, and only 8 per cent. believed that they had improved. A Forum of Private Business survey of members' opinions shows that an increasing number are in favour of legislation, now 84 per cent. The commercial collection division of Dun and Bradstreet, the United Kingdom's largest debt collector—and it ought to know what it is talking about—claims that the code of practice is not reducing the problem and that the situation has worsened since the code was introduced last May.
From 1 October last year, the Customs and Excise authorities have been empowered to impose statutory penalties on businesses late in paying VAT, and the penalties range from 5 per cent. to as much as 30 per cent. This puts an additional squeeze on small firms, and it is regrettable that no action has yet been taken to help them with their problems. The effects of what is proposed would not resolve all the problems, but it would be a further step in the right direction.
The Scottish secretary of the National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses has said that the Bill would not be a complete solution, but statutory powers would tilt the balance of the dilemma in favour of small businesses. I know that until now my hon. Friend has taken the view that we should wait for two or three years to see whether the voluntary code works, despite the evidence already that it does not.
The threat of a possible application for interest would be enough to change debtors' behaviour, especially if a few well-publicised test cases followed a change in the law. Most other countries, with the notable exception of the Republic of Ireland, have legislation to help with this problem. I commend to my hon. Friend the legislation in Germany and in Japan. This measure would significantly help hundreds of thousands of small firms and self-employed people. We need to change the balance in favour of the honest small business man, so that he can go ahead and expand and prosper in the sure knowledge that he has a greater chance of getting what he is owed in a reasonable time. I hope that the House will accept the Bill and give it a Second Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Allan Stewart, Mr. Richard Ottaway, Mrs. Anna McCurley, Sir Hector Monro, Mr. Michael Brown, Mr. John Corrie, Mr. Geoffrey Dickens, Mr. Michael Forsyth, Mr. Michael Grylls, Mr. Robert Jones, Mr. Albert McQuarrie and Mr. Bill Walker.

LATE PAYMENT OF DEBTS

Mr. Allan Stewart accordingly presented a Bill to establish a legally enforceable system of penalties on late payment of debts; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 3 April and to be printed. [Bill 44].

Opposition Day

[4TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Severe Weather Payments

Mr. Michael Meacher: I beg to move,
That this House, recognising that the Government deliberately chose such a low threshold as—1·5° Centigrade for the Exceptionally Severe Weather Payments Scheme so as to ensure that help is difficult to obtain and insecure in provision, and noting that as a result of the break in the uprating with earnings, single pensioners are today £8 per week worse off and married couple £12 per week worse off than under Labour's formula, calls upon the Government to pay £5 per week automatically as of right to all the poorest and most needy pensioners and families with small children as the only way to guarantee that they receive the necessary heating when they need it without fear of debt.

Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Meacher: A month ago the Opposition launched a debate demonstrating that the Government's proposals for exceptionally severe weather payments were a cruel farce because the scheme had been rigged in such a way that hardly a pensioner would get a penny. We pressed the Government to improve the scheme before it was introduced on 12 December, but the Government took no notice. We then held another debate a week before Christmas to urge the Government to reconsider. Again the Government took no notice.
Last week was bitterly cold and culminated in the coldest night for a quarter of a century. If there was ever a need for exceptionally severe weather payments it was demonstrated last week. Precisely one area in the entire country, one area out of the 64 weather station areas into which Britain is divided, triggered the minus 1·5 deg. C threshold. That area, Eskdalemuir, is a sparsely populated area in south-west Scotland where there are probably more sheep than people. It was obvious that the scheme had fallen at the first hurdle yet two days ago faced with irrefutable evidence of the scheme's pathetic inadequacy, the Minister blithely insisted that the new system had to be given a try.
Precisely one day later, yesterday, the Prime Minister denounced the scheme as a bureaucratic procedure as though her Government had not introduced it in the first place. The Minister made a statement confessing that it did not matter about the temperature readings and that he would pay all the pensioners in the qualifying categories.
Joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth".
We want to know whether the Government are genuinely repenting or whether this is a convenient one-off concession brought about, not by the temperature outside, but by the political temperature inside. This change of mind on the part of the Government was taken at the last possible moment yesterday and was clearly prompted by an anxiety to save the Government's face in the debate today. Perhaps we ought to have a debate on this subject every week in order to jog the Government's conscience.
We want to know whether the Government are discarding this miserable little scheme altogether and replacing it with a payment as of right throughout the winter to all the poorest and most needy pensioners. That is what we have proposed all along. The Minister had

better understand at the outset that there is little rhyme or reason in a one-week concession. Why not last week, and what about next week?

Mr. John Maples: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Meacher: No, I will not give way now. I shall give way in a moment. What is the point of disregarding a bureaucratic procedure one week if one immediately returns to it the next week?

Mr. Robert Atkins: Does the £3·6 billion poverty programme that the Labour party is supposed to have agreed at its recent Bishops Stortford meeting include provision for £5 a week for the duration of the winter? That adds up to about £180 million. If it does not include that amount, where will the money come from?

Mr. Meacher: I can tell the hon. Gentleman one place that it could come from. I do not know whether he has had notice of some of the contents of the public expenditure White Paper, but I see that the Government are proposing to spend an extra £230 million in the next two years on the cost of stocking Common Market food mountains. I suggest that that money would be much better spent on elderly people in the cold. [Interruption.]
A single one-off £5 payment is not exactly generous in present conditions. It is about enough to heat one room for two days using a two-bar electric fire. What about the other five days of the week? I can tell the Minister that running a two-bar fire for 24 hours a day costs about £18 a week at current prices. I suspect that many pensioners need to spend an extra £10 to £15 a week to keep warm in the current freeze. That is why the cumulative effect of successive £5 payments every week which we recommend is so important. A one-off payment, like the one that the Government have just announced, does not lift any of the anxiety of elderly people who turn off the heating for fear of running into debt because of the uncertainty of future payments.

Mr. Maples: Will the hon. Gentleman remind the House how much the last Labour Government spent on exceptionally severe weather payments?

Mr. Meacher: I certainly will, and I give advance notice of a later section of my speech. The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that on the electricity discount scheme we spent nine times more than this Government are spending on the exceptionally severe weather payments scheme.

The Minister for Social Security and the Disabled (Mr. John Major): Since the hon. Gentleman has made that interesting and freshly discovered observation, would he care to put it into its proper context by reminding the House of the level of inflation in electricity prices at that time?

Mr. Meacher: Perhaps the Minister—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I am answering. What matters to elderly people is the increase in the value of their pension, in real terms, after inflation is taken into account. On that basis, under the last Labour Government the value of the pension increased by 20 per cent. in real terms. Under this Government, it has increased by 3 per cent. in seven years.

Mr. Jerry Hayes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Meacher: No, I do not intend to give way again. I want to get on with my speech.
Nor are the qualifying categories for this single one-off payment anywhere near wide enough. They are confined to pensioners on supplementary benefit. There are a million or so pensioners with incomes that are only slightly above the supplementary benefit line who are just as much in need because they are struggling to pay their fuel bills. We would include them in the regular weekly payment of a £5 special winter fuel premium.

Mr. Hayes: rose—

Mr. Meacher: The Government have not included them even in the single one-off payment that they have conceded for one week. That is the difference.

Mr. Hayes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Meacher: I shall give way once more.

Mr. Hayes: The hon. Gentleman speaks loftily of the earnings-related formula, which is an integral part of the Opposition's motion. However, does he remember that his Government abandoned that formula in 1976, 1977 and 1978 and that in 1979 the then Secretary of State for Social Services—now Lord Ennals—in Pensioners Voice, said that he did not have to take it into account, anyway?

Mr. Meacher: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman will convince any pensioners by producing statistical distortions of that kind. What matters to pensioners is the value of the money in their pockets and its purchasing power. Under a Labour Government, it rose by a fifth, but under this Government it has been virtually stationary for seven years. However, that is not the real issue. The real issue is that this scheme is hopelessly inadequate. It must be replaced as a matter of urgency if thousands of preventable deaths are not to occur this winter.
The scheme has three fundamental defects. The trigger threshold at minus 1·5 deg C is absurdly low. Even when that temperature is reached, nearly always it does not trigger payment because of the absurd seven-day averaging requirement from Monday to Sunday, which is so bureaucratically cumbersome. Pensioners cannot receive the payment, anyway, if they have more than £500 in the bank. The Minister knows, I hope, that most pensioners save for their funerals. Today a funeral costs more than £500. Under this scheme, money reserved for one's funeral makes it more likely that one will not get help to stay alive. That is hardly a sensible way to run a scheme.
If the scheme had been in operation last winter—which was the bitterest for 40 years—more than half the country would still not have triggered payment for one week throughout the entire winter. What is so cynical about this exercise is that the Government chose the minus 1·5 deg C threshold not on the grounds of health or need but as a temperature level that would ensure that about only one in eight pensioners qualified for a single £5 payment once every five years. That is why the scheme is virtually useless, and it was intended to be useless.
I invite hon. Members to look at the evidence. Last week temperatures reached minus 17 deg C at Aviemore, minus 12 deg Cat Shrewsbury, minus 16 deg C around the Pennines and minus 7 deg C in London, yet in not one of those areas did pensioners get a penny. After the worst January weather on record and the coldest night for 26 years, 99·9 per cent. of pensioners were still excluded from payment. At Aberdeen, Arbroath, Dumfries and Dundee

the temperature fell below minus 1·5 deg C for three of the seven days last week, Monday to Sunday, yet pensioners and families with babies got nothing. At Colchester, Clacton, Ipswich and King's Lynn in East Anglia and at Glasgow, Coatbridge, Paisley, Dumbarton and Inverness in Scotland the temperature fell below minus 1·5 deg C for four of the seven days last week, yet pensioners and families with babies got nothing. In Edinburgh, the temperature fell below minus 1·5 deg C for five of the seven days last week, yet pensioners and families with babies got nothing.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Meacher: No. Fourteen weather stations registered an average weekly temperature below freezing. Last week the highest weekly temperature in the whole of Britain was only 3·6 deg C. That was in the west country. Almost everywhere the temperature was virtully at freezing point, yet throughout the country only a handful of pensioners received the payment. That is not fine tuning. That is callous neglect.

Mr. Ian Gow: If the Government's purpose in fashioning this scheme were to avoid making any payments to those who the hon. Gentleman says are in need, they have not been very successful, have they? Why is it that in the first year after the introduction of this scheme we find that we are paying out under it?

Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman has missed the point. The point is that it was needed last week, but virtually nobody got it. The Government are so utterly embarrassed and ashamed of the fact that in the worst cold weather for 30 or 40 years nobody received the payment that they have decided to scrap the scheme, but only for one week, so that they will have something to say in this debate. Their action is as callous as that.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: When the Labour Government were in office is it not a fact that when the weather was nowhere as cold as this we gave a 25 per cent. discount on winter electricity bills to all pensioners and that we sold gas at cost price, which was a very much cheaper price than it is now, because of the profit margin that has been added to it?

Mr. Meacher: That is right, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) also ended disconnections in the winter of 1977 and, I believe, in 1978 for all pensioners. That was extremely important because it removed fear and did not lead people to turn off their heating when they most needed it. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point.
It is also very disturbing that my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) and I have had the greatest difficulty in obtaining information about temperatures. I put down a parliamentary question for answer yesterday, asking for the average weekly temperatures last week in all 64 areas of the country. I was not given the answer yesterday but was told in the evening, by the press office I might say, that the answer said that the information could not be given. I have now found out why. The Meteorological Office would not give the information on temperatures because it is run by, of all organisations, the Ministry of Defence. I have also since discovered that a circular has been issued forbidding


officials from giving any information that might be contentious, and apparently day and night temperatures come into that category.
We seem to have reached a point where the Soviet Union is more open about riots in Kazakhstan and about nuclear explosions at Chernobyl than are the British Government about temperatures in Britain. I would have thought that even a Government that abused the whole concept of national security over the Peter Wright memoirs could scarcely pretend that revealing daily temperatures endangered the safety of the realm. So I put the Minister on notice that the House expects and has a right to have weekly temperature readings in each of the 64 areas of the country, and the Ministry of Defence had better be told that now.
Not only have the Government suppressed relevant information, they have also been active in an orgy of misinformation. The Prime Minister rested her case yesterday on the claim that £400 million more was being spent on heating allowances and that at least severe weather payments are being made, which was not the case under the Labour Government. What she did not say was that Labour did not need to do that because increases in the pension were so much higher under Labour. If the Tory Government had not broken Labour's uprating link with earnings—and this is of crucial importance—the pension for a single person would now be £7·20 a week higher, every week of this year, and that for a married couple would be £11·40 a week higher, every week of this year. If we had pensions at that level today, we could simply dispense with this piffling farce of a scheme, and guarantee that pensioners had the necessary income to keep warm.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman has just stated that the Labour Government implemented pensions in a particular way. The hon. Gentleman is aware that that simply is not correct.

Several Hon. Members: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I hope that hon. Members will leave it to the Chair to rule on points of order. That is not a point of order.

Mr. Meacher: Another thing that the Prime Minister did not say was that while her Government have increased heating allowances by £400 million—about £140 million in real terms—which I welcome, they have also, by breaking the uprating link with earnings, cut over £3,000 million from pensioners' incomes. For every £1 which pensioners have gained from higher heating allowances and exceptionally severe weather payments, they have lost £8 from the cut in the pension under this Government.
There is another thing, too, that the Prime Minister somehow did not quite manage to remember yesterday. Two years ago her Government knocked £1 a week—that is £50 a year—off the supplementary benefit of pensioners with heating allowances—not exactly the kind of policy that we would expect from someone who really cared about pensioners in the cold.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: rose—

Mr. Meacher: The Prime Minister also said yesterday, in what I must say was the most selective misquotation of the political record that I have heard for a long time in the House, that Labour did not have a cold weather payments

scheme. Quite apart from the much higher pensions that we paid, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) has already made clear—

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Pensions have increased under this Government, mathematical illiterate. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that he cannot intervene in that fashion and must not seek to do so.

Mr. Meacher: I suggest that the hon. Member for the "Hollering Tendency" listens for a bit. He might learn something about the true situation.
The Labour Government did provide a top-up scheme, and it was a much more generous one than this miserly exceptionally severe weather payments scheme. Under the electricity discount scheme, introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield, £5 was paid automatically to all persons on supplementary benefit and family income supplement, plus 25 per cent. of the cost of the winter electricity bill in excess of £20. The Labour Government devoted £45 million to that scheme. The Tory Government are spending about £5 million.

Mr. Forsyth: rose—

Mr. Meacher: Under our scheme 4·5 million people were eligible; under this Tory scheme fewer than 2 million people are eligible, so let us have no more of the lies and claptrap about Labour, which are specifically designed to divert attention from the central fact that, according to Age Concern, 100 old people are dying in this country at this time every week.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Meacher: No, I will not give way.
Unless the Government go a lot further than the tiny concession forced out of them yesterday, I fear that we are on the brink of an even bigger disaster than last year Last year 1,060 elderly people died of hypothermia and another 40,000 died of bronchial pneumonia, heart attacks and strokes brought on by the extreme cold. There is nothing inevitable about this roll-call of tragic deaths. They are preventable. In Canada, in Sweden, in France, the winters are much colder than they are here normally, yet hardly any old people die of hypothermia. That is because in those countries the houses are much better insulated and pension levels are much higher, perhaps almost unbelievably to many hon. Members—and even more unbelievably to many pensioners in Britain—three times higher in Germany and France, in relation to average earnings, so pensioners can afford the fuel to keep them warm. That is why we now press the Govermment as a matter of urgency—

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Norman Fowler): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Will he at this stage in his argument concede that the worst year in the last decade for deaths from hypothermia was the winter of 1978–79? He will concede that fact, I hope.

Mr. Meacher: It is perfectly true that the number of deaths from hypothermia has been in the region of 50 and has stayed at much the same level throughout the past 10 or 20-year period, but I will say this to the Secretary of


State. If this scheme is not changed by the Government tonight or in the very near future, more people will die of hypothermia this year than in 1978–79.
I want to press the Government to adopt a three-point programme. First, they should announce today that they are dropping the exceptionally severe weather payments scheme, in acknowledgement of the fraud that it is, and replacing it not just for one week but for every week this winter with a £5 payment, not only to all the 1·75 million pensioners on supplementary benefit but to the I million or so on the margins of poverty, just above the supplementary benefit line. That is the only way for pensioners to be certain that they will receive payment and not be frightened into turning off or turning down the heat for fear that they will not have the money to pay for it.
The Government should do something else to provide immediate relief in these exceptionally severe conditions. There are estimated to be between 25,000 and 40,000 people homeless and sleeping rough in London at this time. The London Labour boroughs have been opening night shelters as best they can. Young people are also being turned out of lodgings into the snow because of the Government's iniquitous board and lodging regulations. The Government should today instruct London Transport to open the tube stations at the Bank, Monument and Charing Cross to provide night shelter and protection from the bitter cold for the homeless. I am advised that those stations are best equipped for such an emergency, because they cover the worst areas, have the most space and facilities and using them would cause the least disruption. Will the Secretary of State, as a matter of priority, in conjunction with the London Labour boroughs of Lambeth, Southwark, Islington and Camden, make available the facilities of the civil defence bunkers at Clapham Common, Clapham North, Clapham South and Stockwell underground stations for the immediate shelter of the homeless in inner city London? We regard immediate action as a litmus test of the Government's commitment at this time.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Meacher: No, I want to conclude.
I wish to refer to one other urgent matter. At present, the London borough of Greenwich is absolutely snowbound. At 9 am this morning, 100 soliders from the Royal Artillery, Woolwich, started to assist. They are using their four-wheel drive vehicles to deliver meals on wheels to the elderly and doing such vital work as getting home helps to elderly people and digging out elderly people from snowbound homes to take them to day centres to warm them up. At lunchtime today, the Ministry of Defence instructed the Army to cease all such help at 12 midnight. The borough needs to re-apply for assistance. If this is general Government policy, it is placing a bureaucratic block in the way of commonsense help which is urgently needed in this crisis. I hope very much that the Minister will give a commitment that this will not happen again. [Interruption.] This is not just about London. What happens in—

Mr. MacKay: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay) must not persist in that fashion. It is clear that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) is not giving way.

Mr. Meacher: May I say to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) that what happens in London can happen elsewhere if the Government so wish. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would be more concerned about what we are proposing in London because there are many Scottish young people homeless and in need of assistance in the Metropolis.
Secondly, there is a desperate need to improve insulation and draught-proofing, starting with the homes of the most vulnerable elderly people. Research has shown that a badly insulated home costs 12 times as much to heat for every 1 deg. C drop in temperature as a well-insulated home. Britain has probably the worst insulated homes in western Europe, and the biggest sufferers are probably the elderly. At present, the insulation programme is, to say the least, fragmentary. Worse still, for the elderly, it will come to an absolute halt in a year's time when the Fowler Social Security Act halts the single payments for this purpose in April 1988.
As for the immediate crisis, the Child Poverty Action Group, Help the Aged, and four other major groups wrote to the Minister in October, I understand, pointing out the huge problems if there was a sudden drop in temperature and offering their help and experience. They received an acknowledgement and have heard nothing else since.
For several years, the Opposition have been pressing for a national insulation scheme. It would provide jobs—since, of course, it is highly labour-intensive—save energy and protect old people from the extreme cold. We believe that some priority insulation work could still be done this winter, but at least the Government should now give a commitment that throughout this next year, this programme will command funding and support to ensure that elderly people, families on low incomes with babies and sick and disabled people never again have to face the rigours of exceptionally cold weather as unprotected as they are this winter.
The third component of a programme—

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Meacher: I am winding up.
The third component of a programme to meet this crisis is an adequate pension, and perhaps it is the most important component of all. There is no way around that. That is why Labour is committed to an immediate increase of £5 a week for single pensioners and £8 a week for married couples and committed to preserving and consolidating the state earnings-related pension scheme, which the Government want to erode and destroy, to restoring the link with earnings that the Government broke so that pensioners share in rising living standards with the rest of the community and to providing the £5 a week special winter fuel premium. Labour believes in providing decent pensions, good health and welfare services and, above all, adequate heating for pensioners who have given their working lives for this country. I submit that those policies and the Labour Government who would implement them have never been needed more than at this time.

The Minister for Social Security and the Disabled (Mr. John Major): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
'recognises the substantial improvement in the levels of supplementary benefit payments together with the containment of inflation, the extension and improvement of heating additions and the introduction of a statutory entitlement to cold weather payments to assest vulnerable groups; notes that these provisions are all running at record levels; and welcomes the Government's continuing commitment to provide good health and social services to the pensioners of this country'.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) began his speech by misquoting my comments, misunderstanding the scheme and misinterpreting—deliberately, I suspect—the announcement that I made yesterday. He did not respond—it was easily noticeable to the House that he did not—to the specific question by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) about whether his winter premium scheme is or is not contained within the £3·6 billion by which the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) threatens to raise taxes. I offer the hon. Member for Oldham, West, an opportunity: is it, or is it not, contained within that £3·6 billion, which is the maximum, we are told, by which taxes will be raised? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] The hon. Gentleman is silent.

Mr. Meacher: I shall gladly answer. The Government propose, as the Chancellor did in the autumn statement a month or two ago, to increase public expenditure this year by £4·5 billion. That would easily provide an extra £150 for the elderly. The Government should put the money there, not into electoral tax bribes for the better-off.

Mr. Major: Now we know the answer. It is that the hon. Gentleman does not know, and will not say, that this is yet another in those long lists of cynical and bogus promises which he knows he cannot meet, yet which he repeatedly makes every time he rises to his feet.

Mr. Stuart Randall: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Major: I shall not give way. [Interruption.] I shall get on with my speech.
This morning the hon. Member for Oldham, West seemed to extend even his previous promises about the winter premium scheme. In composite 14 at the Labour party conference, it was to be for 13 weeks or so. This morning, when the hon. Gentleman conducted an interview on the "Today" programme, he seemed to commit himself for a far longer period. We shall carefully cost that extension. The fact is that the hon. Gentleman is adept at making promises which he knows he cannot keep and does not intend to keep.
The hon. Gentleman claims that he was in contact with our press office and sought certain information. I understand that he particularly sought night temperatures separately, which we have said we shall speedily provide and pass on to him. If the hon. Gentleman wishes, I shall either pass them on to him directly or via the CIA, whichever option he prefers.

Mr. Randall: rose—

Mr. Max Madden: rose—

Mr. Major: I shall not give way. [Interruption.]

Mr. Randall: The hon. Gentleman is not concerned about the people who are freezing, only about the money. The Government should and can find the money for these people.

Mr. Major: I shall come specifically to other points when I have dealt with the dross of the speech of the hon. Member for Oldham, West. This is a debate, and I shall talk about the problems and our practical propositions when I have dealt with the hon. Gentleman's remarks.
The hon. Gentleman talks of an electricity discount scheme and criticises bureaucracy at the same time. I seem to recall that that needed a vast amount of documentation to support it, with 40 to 50 specific questions, most of which included the magic words:
write to the Department of Energy for information.
We will come specifically to fuel prices. The hon. Gentleman may not like this, but it is a fact that since the last election domestic gas and electricity prices have fallen in real terms, gas by 7 per cent. and electricity by 10 per cent. In real terms domestic gas now costs less than it did in 1970. The hon. Gentleman may care also to bear in mind that the increase for electricity has been about 2 per cent. a year. It rose 11 times as fast when the Labour party was in power as it does today. That is something that he might usefully bear in mind.

Mr. Ashton: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Clearly the Minister is not giving way.

Mr. Ashton: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Members should not rise when I am on my feet. Is the hon. Gentleman seeking to raise a point of order?

Mr. Ashton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister is deliberately misleading the House, as the Prime Minister did yesterday. The figure since the last election—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr. Speaker has ruled that allegations that a Minister or any hon. Member is deliberately misleading the House are out of order. The hon. Gentleman must not say that.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Ashton: Much of the debate this afternoon has been about the Prime Minister—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman was rising to withdraw the use of the phrase "deliberately misleading". I very much hope that he will do so.

Mr. Ashton: I rise to seek your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If you ask me to withdraw those words, I shall do so, but I seek your guidance. When the Prime Minister deliberately makes a statement, as she did yesterday, and the Minister makes a statement today about what has happened since the last election, since 1979, what phrase can we use for this deliberate mis—whatever it is?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman might have made a more generous and less grudging withdrawal. I advise him to do so.

Mr. Ashton: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will.

Dr. Oonagh McDonald: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that this will clarify the matter. In a written answer—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Neither the contents of speeches nor answers to questions are matters for the Chair. If there are matters which hon. Members think should be rebutted, I hope that they will seek to do so in the course of the debate.

Mr. Major: No doubt it would be of considerable pleasure to the House if the hon. Lady were to catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker. She might then make the remarks that she has sought to make in a bogus fashion just now.

Dr. McDonald: rose—

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must contain himself. The whole House is anxious to hear the Minister's speech. If there are matters with which hon. Members disagree, they will have the opportunity in the course of the debate to catch my eye. I hope that the Minister will be given the right to make his speech, which is the right of every hon. Member.

Mr. Major: It becomes noticeable, does it not, that members of Her Majesty's Opposition seem disinclined to proceed with the debate and to determine what realistically may be done to solve the special problems that exist? There are specific matters that I wish to deal with later which even the most boneheaded Member of the Opposition might conceivably find of some interest. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name him."] If hon. Members who shout "Name him" think the hon. Member may come well out of it were I to do so, I fear that I must disabuse them.
We are having this debate today because yesterday the Leader of the Opposition changed his mind and changed the business of the House for today. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the importance of the issue. Because of its importance, it was decided that we would have the debate today. It is interesting to note that the debate which he previously had in mind was to be on the economic crisis which the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook keeps inventing, but that has been postponed. The crisis is off for today. It can apparently wait to be reinvented at a later date. Like Bunter's postal order, the crisis never comes, however much Bunter promises.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: rose—

Mr. Major: Even with the change in the business, one thing that the Opposition will not like—the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) is among those hon. Members—is listening, because facts disturb them, and reality disturbs them.

Mr. Mark Fisher: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I believe that when the Minister referred to a boneheaded Member he must have meant me, as I am surely the boniest-headed Member in the Chamber. If that is the case, he ought to give way. He should answer the point that I make, which is that he has got his statistics wrong.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must not use bogus points of order to make the intervention that is otherwise denied them.

Mr. Major: I congratulate the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) on becoming spokesman for the arts, an appointment which the whole House

welcomes. I accept that the hon. Gentleman has much more inside his head than on top of it. For that reason, if for none other, I shall give way to him.

Mr. Fisher: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I am sure he is aware of his Government's statistics. In answer to a written question by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald), the Under-Secretary of State for Energy explained clearly to the House that gas prices had risen in current terms by 124 per cent. since 1979. Will the Minister explain that?

Mr. Major: If, upon reflection—

Dr. McDonald: What about the written answer?

Mr. Major: The hon. Lady has a delightful dulcet tone. I think that it would be more to the general agreement of the House if she were to rise in her place later and utter then rather than now. If, upon reflection, when I have studied the record in Hansard, I find that I inadvertently misled the House, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman and willingly acknowledge that fact.
In changing the business, the Leader of the Opposition was doubtless anxious to demonstrate the concern of the Labour party over the difficulties that the elderly face during this extreme weather. They do face problems. I propose to address those problems directly in a moment.
I would have been more impressed with the right hon. Gentleman's concern had his record in this issue not been so clear. We know that he supported the year-long miners' strike and a series of other industrial disputes without one peep on behalf of those who were suffering, whether the elderly, the sick, the disabled or whoever else. I might have accepted his concern even more if during those disputes he had bombarded the House, including the Order Paper, with questions that reflected his concern for the vulnerable. The fact remains, however, that he supported the miners' strike. He showed no public concern for the elderly whatsoever during a winter of savage industrial disruption. We know now the depths of his concern. The elderly come first after his support for militancy, his self-interest and the Labour party. That is the position of the elderly. They are to be the shock troops in the right hon. Gentleman's campaign on behalf of the Labour party and second to every interest of his own.
I turn specifically to the matter which, for the Government at least, is of prime concern.

Mr. Frank Dobson: The Minister has spoken for 14 minutes before reaching the main topic.

Mr. Major: The hon. Gentleman may have lunched well if not wisely. If he wishes me speedily to proceed to the issues, perhaps he will permit me to do so. Perhaps the most vulnerable of all members of society are the elderly who live on their own. I shall address myself specifically to the social security benefits that are available to them, but there is—[Interruption.] The silence of the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) and others might be appreciated by many more hon. Members than myself.
Whatever social service and social security help is available—and it is substantial—many vulnerable people are often proud, independent and determined to manage on their own. They are disinclined to bother others even though they may often need help, whomsoever may be involved. I hope that in these unprecedented weather


conditions others who are fit and healthy will unobtrusively keep an eye on their vulnerable neighbours and offer help, or call for statutory help if that is needed.

Mr. Wareing: What is the Minister going to do?

Mr. Major: I shall come to that. Such action will be increasingly valuable and may avoid unnecessary hardship or tragedy, and would be utterly in keeping with the longstanding tradition of community care in Britain.
This morning one national newspaper—Today—printed a poster bill for the housebound to place in their windows should it be necessary to do so. I believe that the newspaper will continue to do that, and I welcome the initiative. It is a simple and excellent illustration of what can be done and I hope that everyone, even those Opposition Members who seem to have nothing more on their minds than to scream mindless abuse at me, will be alert to the needs of their neighbours during this severe winter weather.

Mr. Kevin Barron: rose—

Mr. Major: When the hon. Gentleman talks sense I shall give him the Floor to do so, but I fear that it may be a long time before he does so.
In making my plea, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I do so without any attempt—

Mr. Neil Kinnock: I endorse entirely what the Minister has said about the admirable act which Today and some other newspapers have performed in printing a poster for the housebound. If old people take the notice and stick it in their windows, if neighbours respond, as I hope that they will, and if the old people say, "It is all very well for you to come here, but I am afraid to turn on my heating because I cannot afford the bill that will ensure", what will the Government's response be to the bills that appear in old people's windows?

Mr. Major: It is clear that the right hon. Gentleman did not hear what I said yesterday and on other occasions. We are determined that the elderly should keep warm during this extremely cold spell. That is why all the three tiers of help for heating, whether supplementary benefit, heating additions, or the new statutory entitlement to cold weather payments, have been improved in real terms during the Government's lifetime. The right hon. Gentleman cannot duck that.

Mr. Simon Hughes: rose—

Mr. Major: I make no apologies for drawing the importance of neighbourhood help in these extreme weather conditions to the attention of the House. Whatever social security and social service assistance there is—and it is substantial—there are those who are left alone and who, through their own pride and independence, may miss the help that is available. I have suggested that their neighbours should ensure that where necessary help is directed to them.
The main focus of concern—

Mr. Hughes: rose—

Mr. Stuart Holland: rose—

Mr. Wareing: rose—

Mr. Major: Opposition Members, including the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), are anxious that I should make progress, and that is what I propose to do for a moment or two.
It is clear that the main focus of concern is the system of special payments at times of exceptionally cold weather. I make no apologies for reminding the House—not for the first time—that they have always been only one part, and a small part, of a substantial overall network of financial support. The primary help for those on supplementary benefit for heating is through the regular supplementary benefit weekly payments. These payments are made to cover normal living expenses, including heating costs.
Further, there is a substantial system of heating additions. Extra money is paid each week throughout the year to those with special heating needs.

Mr. Wareing: On that point—

Mr. Dobson: Nineteen minutes.

Mr. Major: It was this Government who put the payments formally on a regulated entitlement basis in 1980. That was not specifically acknowledged by the hon. Member for Oldham, West. The Government—

Mr. Wareing: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Major: If the hon. Gentleman can prevent his hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras from saying "19 minutes" or "20 minutes" like an agitated parrot with constipation, I may conceivably give way to him, but not until that has been done.

Mr. Stuart Holland: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Wareing: rose—

Mr. Major: We have improved and considerably extended the categories of people who receive help through heating addition. They now go automatically—

Mr. Wareing: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister has made it clear that he will not give way.

Mr. Major: The payments now go automatically to householders aged 65 or over—

Mr. Wareing: rose—

Mr. Robert Atkins: Wareing by name and wearing by nature.

Mr. Wareing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister referred in a derogatory way to an Opposition Member. The hon. Gentleman pointed in my direction and I have a feeling that he was pointing at me. I wished to ask him whether he would restore the heating additions, or whether he would take them away from the available scale margin under which he introduced them just a couple of years ago.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already made it clear to the House that I deprecate bogus points of order being used as masks for interventions which hon. Members desire to make but have been denied the opportunity to do so.

Mr. Major: I was seeking to stress that the higher rate of heating addition is now paid automatically to those over 65 and to disabled people receiving attendance allowance or mobility allowance.

Mr. Wareing: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not persist in this fashion. He knows that if the Minister or any other hon. Member chooses not to give way, he should not persist in seeking to intervene. I hope that he will bear that in mind.

Mr. Major: The House will be surprised that the specific increases in heating additions did not form a material part of the remarks of the hon. Member for Oldham, West. Apparently he overlooked them. Nor did he mention that the latest figures show that nine tenths of pensioners on supplementary benefit receive a heating addition, compared with only about 70 per cent. during the period of the Labour Government. He did not mention also that there had been a significant increase in the value of the payments after taking account of inflation, an increase well above anything that was provided by any previous Government. We are bound to wonder whether the hon. Gentleman is misinformed, or is seeking to misinform, when he lays charges before the House of the sort that we have heard today.
Regular help with heating costs is now over £400 a year for the average pensioner aged 65, and over £600 for the very elderly who are over 85 and for the severely disabled. The scale of that help is in sharp contrast to the impression given by the hon. Member for Oldham, West, and is notably more comprehensive than anything provided when the hon. Gentleman was a Minister in the Department.
That is not all. The help that I have already outlined will enable people to meet their fuel bills and to keep warm. The help is there throughout the year and is paid weekly, winter and summer. However, we recognise that people look for extra help when the weather is particularly savage.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: rose—

Mr. Major: That is why we placed the severe weather payments on a clear statutory basis, with a known entitlement. I must make it clear to the House that such arrangements have always been intended to deal with exceptional weather conditions to provide extra reassurance to people so that they turn their heating up at times of maximum cold.

Mr. Rees: As we are dealing with realities, I advise the Minister that an old-age pensioner, from the part of Leeds that I represent, gave advice to other pensioners on the radio today. Feelings are running high and he said, "I do not intend to die because of the cold. I am going to have my heating on and, if needs be, I will go to gaol." That was heard throughout the country.
Although not strictly relevant to that point, I should like to ask the Minister whether, before the debate ends, he will arrange for an official from the Department of Energy to come to the House. Whatever the scheme, some old-age pensioners will have on only one bar and they will not have the heating on overnight because they are afraid of the bill that will come later. Despite the £5 allowance that was announced, we must do something more. Officials from the Department of Energy must talk to the gas people, the electricity people and others. The bad weather may last for only a fortnight, but old people are cold in my area and in others, and we must do something to help them.

Mr. Major: We have heard the right hon. Gentleman mention the comments of those who are worried about their personal position. I reiterate the assurance that I sought to give in the past. In these savage and unprecedented weather conditions, we wish to ensure that people keep their heating on and that they keep warm. I hope that there is no doubt about that.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The old-age pensioner said that he could not afford to.

Mr. Major: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to finish. Most people pay their heating bills at the end of a quarter. The sum total of the quarter's bill is presented to them at the end of the 13-week period. Many people may not have borne in mind the fact that December 1986 was almost the mildest December since records have been kept. They may well find that they used less fuel that month than they previously would have budgeted for.
In any event, the Leader of the Opposition, who is more the leader of the yobbo tendency today than of anything else, might do well to set a better example to this Back Benchers if he does not want the true spirit of the Labour party to be too well known outside the House.

Mr. Kinnock: The Minister has been speaking for 27 minutes. There are people dying in this country, and people who are cold and poor, but all that the hon. Gentleman has done is to make inferior debating society points. He plainly does not give a damn. He should either get down to the issue, or sit down and let people speak who know about the issue.

Mr. Major: As it happens, I have spent most of the 27 minutes listening to inane fifth-form interventions such as that one. While the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues try to spread fear and despondency, we are trying to reassure people that they should keep their heating on, and that is what we shall continue to do. I made that absolutely clear yesterday. Even the right hon. Gentleman should have understood, because I told him often enough, that people should keep their heating on and keep warm. I made it equally clear yesterday that in these circumstances the trigger point will overwhelmingly be reached this week, but even if it is not reached in some areas, payment will be made.
We have taken immediate action to alert local and regional offices to that statement and to our intention to make that payment. We are placing advertisements in the national press tomorrow, if space can be found, or on Friday if it cannot. All 45 local radio stations in Britain and Northern Ireland will carry commercials advertising those payments, seven times a day from tomorrow. Local offices have been asked to advertise through the local press as quickly as possible and to make the new leaflets, now being distributed, available in their areas. Both the advertisements and the leaflets contain simple claim forms so that people can obtain the payment.

Mr. David Winnick: rose—

Mr. Major: We have been especially concerned with the immediate plight of those who find themselves without any shelter at all during these appalling weather conditions. In addition to what I shall say about that, I give an undertaking to the hon. Member for Oldham, West that we shall look carefully and speedily at the specific suggestions that he made to deal with that problem.

Mr. Dobson: rose—

Mr. Major: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will wait a moment. We have already been in touch with the major voluntary organisations and are actively helping to coordinate the practical aid. I applaud their efforts, and I am glad to say that we have also been able to offer additional funds to enable them to expand their range of activities and to act more rapidly. We have, in effect, agreed to underwrite their additional expenses for the "crisis intervention" work that they are doing during this period of extremely savage weather.

Mr. Tony Benn: rose—

Mr. Major: Their efforts, and ours, are being coordinated by Crisis at Christmas. By today, several new night shelters will have been opened in London, offering sleep, shelter and food to people who need it. Some people may choose not to go into shelters or hostels even in the present conditions, because that, alas, is their culture. The voluntary organisations are continuing their excellent work in going out to those people and offering what help they can. We are prepared to back those efforts, and we are actively exploring other ways in which we might help. There is space in several resettlement units and in Salvation Army units. I am delighted that the Bishop of London has asked many parish priests to open their church halls while the savage weather continues. Those are helpful and useful initiatives and I hope that homeless people will take advantage of them.

Mr. Dobson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and I welcome the measures that he has announced. I welcome also the efforts which the churches, borough councils and charities are making. However, the Minister should remember that the 6,000 homeless people who live in bed-and-breakfast accommodation in London, and the 20,000 people who are sleeping rough, did not come down with the snow and that they will not go away when it melts. We need to stop the unemployment that has made them homeless. We need money to build houses so that those people have somewhere decent to live, and we need decent levels of benefit so that they can be looked after in the interim. That crisis continues and does not exist only in periods of bad weather.

Mr. Major: It would also be helpful if some local authorities made more attractive and relevant use of the voids that they have, because they can often offer specific help, perhaps not least in the London borough of Camden, about which the hon. Gentleman knows so much.

Mr. Benn: Will the Minister clarify one point?

Mr. Major: I shall not give way to the right hon. Gentleman, because many hon. Members wish to speak in the debate. In his usual graceless fashion the Leader of the Opposition said that the debate was making slow progress, so I shall not give way.

Mr. Meacher: My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) introduced a scheme.

Mr. Major: If the right hon. Gentleman introduced a scheme, I am sure that he will catch Mr. Speaker's eye and be able to elaborate on that.
Earlier today the hon. Member for Oldham, West apparently advocated a nationwide insulation scheme. He did not say whether he had costed his plan or what it would be. He did not say whether it was agreed with his right hon. Friend the Shadow Chancellor, or whether it

was genuine or another gimmick. However, whatever it may be, I must say that we have been promoting voluntary insulating projects for years. In 1980 the total number of such projects was under half a dozen. Expansion since then has been dramatic. There were 200 in 1984, there are some 360 now and many more are at the planning stage. As a result of the project, the home conditions of over 200,000 on low incomes have been made more comfortable and the total cost to public funds for the voluntary work is often funded through the public sector, in spite of what the Leader of the Opposition may have muttered. The total cost to public funds now amounts to over £30 million a year.
Even earlier today, at breakfast time, we heard yet again about the plan of the hon. Member for Oldham, West for a £5 winter premium. However, despite repeated challenges as to where the money will come from, there has been no answer.
There is one further critical factor in ensuring that people are kept warm—the price of fuel. Whatever reflection I may subsequently make upon the statistics challenged by the hon. Member for Oldham, West, it is undoubtedly true that the level of inflation in fuel prices during the period of the previous Labour Government was infinitely higher than anything that has occurred subsequently. The Opposition's effrontery in tabling the motion before us today is absolutely breathtaking.
There are three tiers of support for heating. First, there is supplementary benefit, where the levels have been increased. Secondly, there are heating additions, where the levels have also been increased, the number of people entitled has been extended and it has been made a statutory weekly payment. Thirdly, of course, there is the exceptionally severe weather payment, which has also been put on a statutory basis.
We have substantially eliminated fuel inflation and we have expanded the insulation project. The value of pensions, despite the hon. Member for Oldham, West's extremely perverse statistics, has been increased and inflation has been contained. I am content to let our substantial record of practical help stand against the repeated uncosted promises of the Opposition. Their fine words and promises will keep no one warm. Our record of practical assistance throughout the benefits system and in the other policies that I have outlined will keep people warm. I invite the House to endorse all that and to reject the Opposition's motion.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: I do not think that many of the pensioners and those on low incomes and supplementary benefit who are in the qualifying categories for exceptionally severe weather payments can take much comfort from the supposed assault launched by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) or, more to the point—as he is the individual in the position to take the decisions—from the Minister's apparently complacent attitude. Given the scale of the problem we read about in our newpapers, see each night on our television screens and hear about daily from our constituents, how any Minister can say he is content defies belief.
I welcome one aspect of the Minister's speech. During the latter part of his remarks, he announced the efforts that he is making on homelessness. Such efforts are essential. I should like to make an additional suggestion.


There has been considerable debate, especially within London since the abolition of the Greater London council, as to how the voluntary organisations will fare. It might be worth the Department's time to make available a civil servant, or several civil servants, to look at how co-operation operates between the Department and the voluntary sector in a major crisis such as this. There may be useful lessons to be learnt, not just for the Government and the voluntary sector, but for all those who are interested or have expressed concern about how the pattern of care might emerge after the disappearance of the GLC. It may be that some practical and academic information will come from such an exercise.

The Minister for Health (Mr. Tony Newton): As my hon. Friend the Minister said, our hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State had a meeting this morning with some voluntary organisations. That meeting led to some of the remarks that my hon. Friend the Minister has just made. One of the conclusions reached was that we wish to carry forward this work after the immediate problem is solved to see how we can ensure proper co-ordination in the future.

Mr. Kennedy: I am glad to hear that. However, with a slip of the tongue, the Minister may have given part of the game away. Now that there is an emergency we realise that it is worth ensuring a proper system in the future. Surely that suggests that the system is not adequate at present. To be fair, that has to be set in the context of many of the assurances given especially by the Minister's noble Friend who was a Home Office Minister in the other place, as to the future of the voluntary sector in the post-GLC age. I welcome what the Minister is saying but I think that it highlights a deficiency in many of the assurances that Ministers were willing to give to those who inquired about this matter some time ago.
Heating is not a luxury, and, sadly, each winter elderly people die simply because they cannot afford to heat their homes. This debate is an opportunity for the House to contribute its thoughts on how such unnecessary and cruel deaths can be prevented. I believe that there is much that the Government can and should do to help, beyond what they are offering already.
I would argue, as do my right hon. and hon. Friends in our amendment, that the categories entitled to severe weather payments should be extended. The present categories are too restrictive. What about the old people whose income is just above supplementary benefit level or families on supplementary benefit with young children over two years old? Clearly, those are two obvious areas to which the Government should be looking, even under the constraints of the present system. I reiterate that we consider it an unsatisfactory system. Even within those constraints the Government could do more to widen the net of eligibility for some of the poorest in our community. How are such people to pay for their extra heating? I do not think that the Minister suggests that they can do without it.
The problem of eligibility is closely related to the position of the DHSS staff and offices in administering the scheme. We all know that one of the trenchant and fair criticisms of the previous system was the complexity and what was seen as the manifest injustice that went with that

complexity. The Government have now opted for a flat rate or standard measure so that payment becomes automatic to all those who meet the qualifying criteria.
The basic problem is that the trigger temperature of minus 1·5 deg C, which is an unsatisfactory measure in itself, is inadequate. Many of the elderly, as we know, live in houses that are poorly insulated and cold and the temperature in that sort of home begins to plummet well before an average of minus 1·5 deg C is reached and certainly before such a temperature, by the grace of God beginning on Sunday and ending on the following Monday, is reached.
We have suggested in our amendment that it would be more sensible, if perhaps not ideal, for the Government to take zero deg C as the trigger. More important than that, instead of using the average temperature measured over the seven days from a Monday to the following Sunday, which is too inflexible—a fairer system based on zero deg C would be to use an average of the trigger point on any consecutive seven days. If bad weather sets in on a Wednesday and begins to lift the following Wednesday, because that bad weather came on the wrong days of the week no claim could be made. Under our proposal a claim would be eligible.
Thirdly, a further criticism of the system is the fact that many in Britain, I would estimate tens of thousands, who are eligible to receive the £5 benefit that the Minister announced yesterday, must be labouring under the misapprehension that such payment will be automatic. It will not be automatic. It is worth underlining in this debate that although, by ministerial discretion, they are now eligible, they still have to make their claim to the local office. It will still take time for the money to come through and there will still be, for many, a great deal of indecision about exactly what they should do.
In my part of the country, which is rural with a widely scattered population, it is not easy, particularly for the housebound elderly, to contact the local DHSS office. It is not easy for them to make a specific claim. That is one reason, among many, why we suggest that this scheme would be a lot more efficient and effective if it were made clear when payment was to be made so that those who should receive it know that payment will come automatically without a special claim to the DHSS.
I refuse to believe that it is beyond the bureaucratic wit of man to devise a system that gives effect to that practical policy. I hope that the Government—I repeat again, within the constraints of the present system—will look at the suggestions and try to take them on board.
A fourth point about the present system concerns the selection of the monitoring stations to decide when an average temperature of minus 1·5 deg C over the allotted days is reached.
I speak in particular about the north of Scotland, being geographically the part of the country that I know best. The Government have selected, for example, in the north of Scotland area, monitoring stations at Dyce, Kinloss and at Leuchars. Braemar, for example, comes within the remit of the area of the Dyce monitoring station. Last week, the temperature at Braemar reached minus 18 deg C. Aviemore comes within the monitoring station covered by Kinloss measuring point. Last week, the temperature at Aviemore reached minus 16 deg C. The Earn valley comes within the area covered by the Leuchars monitoring station. Last week the temperature in the Earn valley reached minus 11 deg C.
Those are horrendously cold temperatures. Not one payment was made in any of those areas, because on each and every occasion, despite the severity of the temperature in the communities mentioned—plenty of other examples could be cited—the stations being sited on the coast, or nearer the coast than other available monitoring stations in that part of Scotland, do not give such an accurate reading of the temperature further inland.
It is significant—I direct the Minister's attention to this—that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) mentioned that Eskdalemuir had been the only part of the country where the special payment was triggered under the scheme as originally constituted, leaving aside the Minister's special intervention yesterday. That is because, of the monitoring stations in Scotland, Eskdalemuir is the most inland and therefore gives the most accurate information on the severity of the temperature, the other stations in Scotland are coastal and do not give such an accurate reading.
The Minister should be aware that monitoring stations that would be sufficient for his Department's purposes are available in two of the three examples that I gave where severe temperature was experienced. Braemar and Aviemore have adequate measuring facilities for temperature, but strangely those have not been selected. I am sure that that was purely a bureaucratic decision. They would have triggered payments this week or last week but they were not selected.
In the north of Scotland we are not getting an accurate picture, because the stations are in the wrong place for measuring accurately the severity of the temperature throughout that part of the land mass. It would not take a great deal for the Government to redesignate those stations to try to obtain a better picture if they want the system to operate more efficiently, as the Minister tells us is his desire.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: This arises in many areas. Anglesey, island in the sun, is the triggering point for the whole of Snowdonia. Even worse, the point in Trawsfynydd is near to a nuclear power station and is regarded as being 4 deg. warmer than the surrounding country. That looks after the other half of Snowdonia.

Mr. Kennedy: I hope that not just the Celtic representatives in this House are being abused by the system, but I understand from television that there are as many anomalies in other parts and regions of England. The fact that the English are having to share our misery is, whilst I do not welcome it, a source of further pressure to bear on the Minister and I hope that he will take practical steps to improve the situation.

Mr. Alexander Pollock: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the temperature for Aviemore and the reading required from Kinloss. I think that the figure he gave for Aviemore was minus 16 deg. C. Can he give us the relevant figure at Kinloss at that time?

Mr. Kennedy: I do not have the specific figure, but, according to the North of Scotland Electricity Consultative Council, the average temperature for the seven-day monitoring period at Kinloss was more than minus 1·5 deg C. I seem to recall that it was slightly above zero.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Kennedy: I did not mean to get into a debate about RAF Kinloss, but I shall give way. I think that that does show the degree of discrepancy.

Mr. Clarke: This morning's Glasgow Herald said that the figure for Kinloss was 0·6 deg C.

Mr. Kennedy: I am afraid that this morning's Glasgow Herald has not made its way to my office.
I spoke to the North of Scotland Electricity Consultative Council earlier today and I was interested by a point that was made about the Secretary of State's failure to answer correspondence. I was told that on 16 October 1986, Christine Davies, who is the chairman of the council, wrote to the Secretary of State drawing his attention to the anomalies that she and the council expected to arise from the proposed new system that the Government were to introduce because coastal points were to be used as the measuring criteria. She has not had a reply to that letter, although I think that it is fairly clear that more careful attention to her predictions should have been paid within the Department.
It is also fair for people in the north of Scotland to feel a growing sense of outrage since 3,000 units of electricity per year is the average consumption for a family in England and Wales, and in excess of 6,000 units per year is the average consumption for a family in the north of Scotland. There is a considerable interest in the matter. It is highly relevant to people and I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind.
I have already said that people must claim payments, even the special payment which the Minister announced yesterday. That will put pressure on DHSS staff and resources. Before the Christmas recess the Minister gave me a set of written answers which showed the alarming percentage increase in claimants, for example in my part of the country, and that was set against a far smaller increase in the staff available to deal with them. If I recall rightly, it was of the order of 10:1.
There will be a repeat performance of what has happened in recent years under the scheme, even under its previous organisation. Delay, frustration and resentment will build up among DHSS staff and clients. I appreciate that the Minister wanted fairness and so went for a nationally uniform system. But that has been seen to be defective and it sits oddly alongside the entire thrust of the social security proposals, which is to go for local discretion. If there is one area of the social security system where an element of local discretion would make sense, it is in deciding what level of special heating support should be given to people when the local officer can make judgments based on the realities of the local climate which will differ from one area to another. The Government seem to spend all their time putting through the social security reviews saying that local discretion is essential. Then in the one area where it might make sense to have an additional top-up formula so that people can be rewarded disproportionately well, in the most severely affected areas they say that there should be no such thing as local discretion. That is not being true to their rhetoric or to the reality of what they have been doing in the bulk of social security legislation. I cannot understand the apparent lack of common sense in this area.
As we say in our amendment, in the longer term more must be done to obtain a national insulation programme. Many imaginative efforts are already being made in


Britain involving co-operation between the DHSS, local charities and, sometimes, the housing sector in providing draught-proofing and insulation, particularly targeted at those on the lowest incomes who, in many cases, are pensioners. More could be done to assist given that that has such beneficial effects in terms of saving fuel and such worthwhile effects in terms of keeping people's homes warmer and leaving them more of their disposable income to do with as they please. At the same time, it puts people back to work. As the hon. Member for Oldham, West fairly pointed out, the work is labour intensive and, my goodness, we need a few socially desirable and labour intensive schemes in Britain at the moment. We should make strenous efforts in that direction.
In the longer term, as my right hon. and hon. Friends have argued on other occasions, we want to see the integration of the tax and benefit system which would provide the opportunity for the introduction of a basic benefit with additional top-up credits, be they on housing, heating or whatever, which will be simple to adminster and which will meet need much more effectively, fairly and efficiently than the present labyrinthine social security system.
What we have seen in Britain in recent weeks, and what, if the severe weather persists we shall continue to experience, has been a disgrace. It has been a disgrace, perhaps more than anything else, because for the past two years there has been an annual parliamentary shambles. It has been an annual suffereance for those who are cold and who do not have sufficient money to heat their homes. Yet again, we have failed to get it right. We are debating the issue now and it is right that we should, yet steps should have been taken to correct it.
Those are some positive suggestions, and it is not too late for the Government to respond more positively at the end of the debate and with a good deal less complacency than the Minister displayed when he opened the debate. If they can do that, they will be doing a good service to some of the most vulnerable in society whom the House, as much as the Government, should protect.

Dame Jill Knight: The Opposition, who live in a fantasy world most of the time, have been trying to tread the Westminster stage this afternoon arrayed as a composite mixture of Oliver Twist, Tiny Tim and little Nell's grandfather. Their lines, with much ranting, raving and noises off, have sought to portray my hon. Friend the Minister as Scrooge, or worse. I have to tell them that the play will not run. Neither the facts nor the costumes fit and their acting is terrible.
It is not so much that the Opposition forget their lines as that they forget what they did when they had the chance to act. There is not the remotest resemblance between what they have asked our Government to do this afternoon and what they did when in office.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) gave the debate what I believe is called in the trade a puff on the "Today" programme on Radio 4 this morning. One would marvel at the height of his flights of fancy except that one always knows that he will indulge in them. He can explode to numbers; he rants to order. Because of that, he is one of the most predictable Members of the House.
This morning the hon. Gentleman told the nation that the Government had asked the weather centre to give them a trigger temperature at which the least number of people possible would be paid severe weather payments. One sees what I mean about living in a fantasy world. There is not one word of truth in that allegation.

Mr. Frank Cook: Explain it.

Dame Jill Knight: I cannot explain it. The hon. Member for Oldham, West made the suggestion.

Mr. Cook: The hon. Lady said that it was fantasy. Explain it.

Dame Jill Knight: Of course it is fantasy. I have said that there is not a word of truth in the allegation that the Government asked the weather centre to tell them the trigger temperature which would enable them to pay the least possible amount of money to people in need.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West said—he said it again this afternoon, although I notice that he did not dare to repeat his other allegation—that there should be a £5 a week allowance for everyone on supplementary benefit throughout the winter to cope with severe weather. I am not sure what "throughout the winter" means. Is it from November to March? But the fact that we sometimes experience quite balmy winters has apparently not registered with the hon. Gentleman. The fact that we often have two or three bad days a winter means nothing. He would still go on pushing out millions of pounds of taxpayers' money, whether or not the need existed.
If ever, Lord help us, the hon. Gentleman were to be the Minister instead of the shadow Minister, the newspapers would have a field day. I must warn him about that. There would be pictures of pensioners basking in deck chairs on a Cornish beach having used their severe weather payment to buy their railway ticket down on a mild and sunny day.
One of the differences between the Conservative party and the Labour party is that we believe that special generous help should be made available for those who need it when especially serious conditions exist. The Labour party believes that money should be doled out with no need established, whether it is bad weather or not or whether people need it or not.
Any Government with such principles cannot possibly give enough real help to those in real need, because they are too busy spending public money in the areas where real need does not exist. Such a Government would face economic disaster. It may be time to say that no Government, however big their heart and however oppulent their spending, will ever be able to shield every citizen from every adversity from the womb to the tomb.
If I may return to the remarks made on radio this morning by the hon. Member for Oldham, West—hon. Members should not draw the conclusion that I enjoyed his comments—he said that the Conservative Government were unwilling to spend any money on social security, preferring instead to give it away to the rich in tax cuts. This year the Conservative Government are spending £43 billion on social security—30 per cent. of public expenditure. If that is considered to be unwilling, Lord help us if we ever get a Government as willing as Barkis. The Government are spending £43 billion, yet the hon. Gentleman is saying that that shows that the Government are unwilling to spend money. The hon. Gentleman should


understand that there is all the difference in the world between deciding how to allocate all the billions of pounds that the Inland Revenue collects in taxes from everyone and taking further money away from those who have already paid large sums to the Inland Revenue.
The Government give absolutely nothing to the rich, and that is right. Despite what Opposition Members may keep on saying, the Government do not use the collected revenue to give to the rich. That is absolute nonsense. Not one brass farthing of Government money goes to the rich. The Government take from them. The Opposition are rather like a burglar who claims that he has given his victims everything that he has not stolen. Allowing people to keep a little more of the money that they have earned is not giving them a single thing. The hon. Member for Oldham, West is not so much economical with the truth as incompatible with it.
The Government have shown great concern about these payments, both yesterday and today, and rightly so. Many of us, from both sides of the House, were pushing for that and indeed the Government have shown their concern to help the old and the cold. The new arrangements, which were announced yesterday, were clearly and swiftly made to meet the sudden severe situation that has cropped up in the past few days. No one wants elderly people to be cold. No one wants them to be afraid to turn up the heat because they are worried about the high cost of fuel. That would be disastrous, and there has been a unanimity of concern about that in the House.
The Government have seen to it that needy people should get automatic help with ordinary heating costs. Those on the basic rate for heating addition get over £8 a week regularly and the more needy still—in line with what I have said—get over £11 a week. The announcement yesterday was for a new increase for everyone, as of right, in need.

Mr. David Maclean: That increase is on top of existing allowances.

Dame Jill Knight: Yes; it is on top of those arrangements to which I have already alluded, and it will cover the three tiers of benefits.
When the exceptionally cold weather occurred, it was the Government and not the Opposition who introduced special extra payments. It was a new conception of benefit, but it was not surprising that we did not get it right the first time as there are tremendous variations. The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) has already referred to the difficulties in measuring different temperatures. There are enormous variations with regard to benefit payments for the needy; we are aware that it is one of the most complicated areas of Government finance.
The calculation of benefit for help in especially severe weather conditions is a complicated part of the complicated benefit payments. There are variations in different parts of the country—freak weather in one area that brings with it serious conditions while someone a few miles down the road does not experience the same weather. The different ages of people represent different threats. The different conditions within people's homes will also further complicate things. Some people may suffer problems that do not affect their next-door neighbour.
Yesterday there was a swift response to a special situation and an acknowledgement that changes were

needed. I am especially pleased that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has understood the need to reassure old people frightened about their ability to pay for the heat upon which their lives may depend. I was interested in what my right hon. Friend said about neighbours. Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to recognise that it is not only a question of demanding or suggesting that a neighbour may be a very good friend at this time of special need? Perhaps there should be some recognition of the fact that so many neighbours have already helped, and that is very important. The Government are always willing to help, but they cannot replace a kind neighbour who may bring a hot drink or an extra blanket, make a thoughtful visit or offer to do the shopping. A lot of such neighbourliness is already going on, and we should recognise that.
I wonder at the decision of the Opposition to choose to mount a debate on this subject when their own record is so incredibly vulnerable. Our record has demonstrated our concern and our determination to help those in need. I am sure that nobody on the Conservative Benches would suggest that we have got it absolutely right.

Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend asked why the Opposition mounted this debate. It was a mistake. They intended to create a lot of synthetic froth about the fact that probably we would not make the extra payment, but when we did it was too late for them to cancel the debate.

Dame Jill Knight: That may well be right. It is a further illustration of the Labour party's inability to judge anything right.
I support the suggestion about insulation. I know that a lot is being done to achieve that, and it is important to press on.
Later in the programme in which the hon. Member for Oldham, West spoke there was an appalling item about a couple in a terrible state whose boiler had burst. The old man had had a cancer operation and his wife was desperately worried about the burst and they sought help by telephoning the council. The answer they got from the council—I bet it was a Labour-controlled one—was that the office was shut and that nothing could be done. I wonder whether my right hon. Friend will consider that salutary message.
I do not wish my right hon. Friend to dictate to local councils, but, in these exceptional weather conditions, official help should be available at once when a boiler has burst, and especially when elderly or sick people are involved. It is appalling for a council to say that the office is shut and that therefore it cannot help. Let us not have that lack of help and care. The Government have amply shown this afternoon that they care.

Mr. Tony Benn: I shall not follow the hon. Lady the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) down some of the byways that she has entered. I believe that the people who are affected by the cold weather want to know whether the House is able to secure an improvement in their position.
I shall not be discussing the important points about what should be the exact temperature, over how many days that temperature should be measured, and exactly how that information should be handled. I want to put


before the House a proposition that I first put to the House 10 years ago when I was the Secretary of State for Energy. It was the objective of our energy policy that
everyone can afford adequate heat and light at home.
That was in the energy policy Green Paper which was published in 1977.

Mr. Maclean: rose—

Mr. Benn: No, I shall not give way. I have listened to the interventions of Conservative Members and I am not persuaded that they are concerned about those who are cold. Let me develop my argument.
I shall put before the House an idea that is so simple that it may surprise some: that it is a human right to be warm and not to be driven by poverty into dying of cold. That is the issue that we should have in our minds when discussing this question. We are talking about real people. I am sure that other hon. Members try to be as conscientious about their constituents as I try to be. In the past few days in particular I have had continual contact with people who are desperately worried that they will die of cold. Pensioners more than anyone else do not want to run into debt, and until they know where they are they will not even turn on the heat.
The figure for death from hypothermia varies by 50 to 100 every year, but we know that it is about 800 or 900. However, that total depends on the doctor putting hypothermia on the death certificate. The surveys done by Age Concern, however, show that 44,000 more pensioners die in the winter months than in the summer months. Moreover, 13,000 of them die in the weeks when the weather is coldest. Others have estimated that one in 10 pensioners, or almost I million people, are at risk, perhaps not of dying from hypothermia but of suffering from it. They have to go through the winter cold and are unable to live any sort of life, huddled in bed under a blanket or whatever.
I do not want the debate to revolve simply around how many pensioners should be catered for. No one should be driven into cold and poverty in the winter. Many other people are also involved. The homeless have already been mentioned and I heard discussion of that on the radio. There are poor people in housing that is so badly maintained that the draughts mean that the temperature in them is probably much lower than that at the local weather station. Yesterday I came across the case of some young unemployed people who had been turned out of their lodgings because of the harsh DHSS board and lodging allowance scheme, and who had been driven into the snow as a result of the regulations introduced by the Minister.
Unless we are prepared to discuss the objectives that should be adopted, we shall be in serious difficulties. I do not want to engage in any tit for tat, as pensioners do not want to listen to that. I believe that this crisis is not just the result of this week's very cold weather but is the culmination of a series of policies pursued by the Government since coming to office.
For example, there was the decision to force up fuel prices. There is a lot of talk about statistics, but I do not want to go into them. Nevertheless, it is manifest that gas prices have increased by 134·7 per cent. as against 90 per cent. for all items since the Prime Minister took office. That is partly due to the Treasury's policy of limiting the

external financing limit, or what used to be called the required rate of return, in order to boost the profits of British Gas before selling it off. Without being crude about it, I must say that those who have made a capital gain during the past few weeks by buying British Gas shares have thereby made it harder for poor pensioners to turn on the gas. That connection between the privatisation of British Gas and death from hypothermia must be made. I do not follow these matters in detail, but I believe that the cost of privatisation in terms of City charges was about £150 million to £160 million.
My next point is obvious. During the past two years the big pit closure programme has laid off miners who wanted to dig coal that could have been given free to pensioners in the form of electricity. We would not then have had unemployed miners side by side with people dying of hypothermia. Without doubt the miners' case was absolutely right.

Mr. Maclean: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Benn: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman, because I am trying to draw the attention of the House and, I hope, the attention of those who read Hansard to some of the contributory factors to fuel poverty.
Reference has already been made to the change in pension arrangements and to the abandonment of the 25 per cent. winter discount scheme. It is of no interest to anyone if an ex-Minister wants to defend his record years later. However, I cut 25 per cent. off the winter electricity bills of all those—not just pensioners—on supplementary benefit and family income supplement, regardless of the weather, and it gave people the certainty that they would not freeze to death in the winter. I was not satisfied with that electricity discount scheme and would have liked to do more, but it was the best scheme ever. The Government stopped it and they should restart it.

Mr. Edward Leigh: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Benn: I shall complete my speech, as I am not persuaded that Conservative Members are addressing themselves to the problems that their policies have contributed to.
My hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) was my Under-Secretary of State when we negotiated hard with the public corporations to stop all supply disconnections of pensioners during the winter and to refer them to the DHSS, where discretionary payments were possible. It should be unthinkable that people can be cut off in the winter for failing to pay their fuel bills.
I tried to intervene and to get a clear answer from the Minister on that important point. He said that he thought that no one should put his health at risk during the cold weather. Perhaps the Minister will answer my point later tonight, as I want to know whether people who fear for their lives and their health and who use fuel in their homes will be disconnected if they cannot pay their bills. I want an absolutely clear assurance that they will not be disconnected if they cannot pay their bills, or prosecuted if they can establish that they could not afford the fuel that they needed to maintain their lives.

Mr. Winnick: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Benn: If I give way to my hon. Friend, I shall give way to another Conservative Member shortly.

Mr. Winnick: Is not that point very important for those who are just above the supplementary benefit level and who live in great poverty? They cannot claim supplementary benefit and do not receive a penny of extra assistance because of the winter weather. What will happen to them? When the Minister made his totally irrelevant speech, he made no mention of that problem.

Mr. Benn: That is one of the difficulties of having such a rigid system. The Government may talk about giving £5 a week automatically. But they could set the temperature at minus 20 deg and offer people £100,000 a week while saying that it was the best scheme ever. The Government have set the temperature at a low level and made the conditions tough. Friends of mine who work in the DHSS have told me that they think that if this scheme had operated last winter no money would have been paid. The DHSS is under a lot of pressure because of manpower cuts, yet it is asked to make assessments. Moreover, applications have to be sent in every week. Thus a pensioner aged over 65 on supplementary benefit must write once a week, having first studied the weather conditions in the local station, if he wants to get the money. On the other hand, until he obtains the money, he will not know whether it is wise to turn on his electricity.
Without being party political, I must tell the House that this is a brutal way to treat old and poor people when the country has 1,000 years of coal as well as oil and is one of the richest energy countries in the world. I believe that we should adopt, as a matter of policy, the objective that everyone should be able to afford adequate heat and light at home. If hon. Members think that that sounds radical, they should imagine us tackling health problems with the same sort of measures as have been announced today. They should imagine the Secretary of State for Social Services saying that, in view of the problems of ill health in our society, pensioners on supplementary benefit would receive a little bit of money to go to a private doctor, provided that they applied to the DHSS. What made the Health Service so important was not nationalising the bricks and mortar but changing the basis on which people have the right to medical treatment from wealth to need.
That is what we should do about the energy policy: to ensure that no one, at least not deliberately, although it may occur accidentally, is allowed to die or, if possible, suffer from cold. To do that we must increase the allowances and pay them automatically instead of by application. We must extend the categories covered by the allowances, as my electricity discount scheme did. That scheme covered 1·6 million people compared with the 100,000 or more who may get the heating allowances.
We should stop the disconnections, because the greatest crime of all is to cut off the supply of someone who is in debt because he is too poor to keep warm and to sustain his or her life. We should cut or end the standing charges. I confess that I could not carry the Government of whom I was a member on the issue of standing charges. They tax the small consumer, whereas the big business consumer gets a discount from bulk supply. That means that the poor pay more for their fuel than those who use more of it.

Mr. Nicholls: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how that squares with the foreword that he wrote to a report in 1977? That report considered, among other things, the abolition of standing charges and stated:

After considering the group's report, the Government have concluded that none of the possibilities—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. The hon. Gentleman should not be reading m an intervention.

Mr. Nicholls: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but as this is the only intervention that we Conservative Members have been allowed to make I thought that it might be all right. The right hon. Gentleman wrote that he was not in favour of abolishing standing charges. What has changed now?

Mr. Benn: If the hon. Gentleman considers that that is the best way to conduct the debate, that is entirely up to him. I quoted from the foreword which I have in my hand. It states:
Our objectives should be to ensure that everyone can afford adequate heat and light at home.
I just said, if the hon. Gentleman was listening, that I could not carry the matter of standing charges. Now pensioners' organisations are demanding the cutting or abolition of standing charges. We should reintroduce the winter discount scheme. Some people have made a substantial profit out of the privatisation of gas. An incoming Labour Government should freeze gas prices until the benefit of that unearned increment goes back, and has gone back completely. To the gas consumers. It is an outrage, made more so by the Secretary of State and Sir Denis Rooke marching through the streets of London with blue ribbons to celebrate something which could now be seen more accurately as a funeral service for those who will die because they dare not switch on the gas this winter.
If we cannot persuade the Government tonight to increase the heating allowances—although public pressure probably shifted them yesterday and it may shift them today—it will not be long before the pensioners, the poor, the homeless and the young unemployed will have the power though their vote to decide how they wish the matter to be handled. I hope that they will use their power to raise the quality of life for themselves and for everyone else.

Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: The House has come to expect my hon. Friend the Minister of State to handle his difficult and emotive brief with care and competence. Neither yesterday nor today did he let us down. The House is rightly entitled to compliment him on his recognition of the public will on this matter. When faced with an unprecedented burst of cold weather, he acted promptly, firmly and correctly, just as we would have wished.
That was matched by hysteria from the Leader of the Opposition and the now inevitable rantings from the shadow social services spokesman, the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). That may well have impressed those members of the public outside with short memories, but Labour's actions when in government give them no right whatever to chastise this Administration for their conduct. The mess resulting from their economic policies meant no Christmas bonus for the elderly. That happened twice during their Administration, and when they changed the procedures for normal pensions—my hon. Friends will correct me if I exaggerate—it cost the pensioners £1 billion.
Yes, of course we would like to do more. I said in earlier debates on this and related issues that I personally would


like to see more done, but I am conscious that it must be paid for. I hope that, as our economy strengthens, we will do just that.
It is easy when a party is in opposition and is not required to pay for or deliver promises to sneer at any reference to the cost of welfare services, but an article in The Daily Telegraph this morning by Mr. Julian Isherwood could not have been better timed. He wrote about the realities that now face Denmark's health service. He said:
Free medical treatment for everything from a cut finger to a new heart has been a right for every Dane… Like may idealistic dreams it has now collided with financial reality…the country's economy has run into deficit and the ingenuity of the Minister for Taxation can no longer match the bottomless pit of all embracing social security demands.
That last phrase rings true for us in the United Kingdom, but it has not yet reached the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook). It has indeed come as a shock to the Danes, who are rightly proud of their past achievements. But, as has been said, for them too, the party is over. That may be unpallatable, but it does not make it any less true. So when the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday, in effect, that the economy could take second place to this matter he was not being caring. He simply has not yet learnt what our friends the Danes are now having to take on board—that every additional promise of more and yet more bounty in welfare provision makes the credibility of the Labour party less and less.
I, too, listened to Radio 4 this morning when the hon. Member for Oldham, West gave a knowingly false picture. He said that the Government expected the elderly to heat their homes for £5 a week. He knew that to be untrue. He knew that heating costs are part of supplementary benefit throughout the year. He knew of the heating additions to vulnerable groups apart from the elderly that are already added to supplementary benefit. He knew of the £2·20 that is paid as of right to the pensioner over 65 on supplementary benefit and of the £5·50 that is paid to the severely disabled and to the very old, but he chose to peddle the untruth that the Conservative party expects a home to be heated on just £5. That is humbug and deceit that is unworthy of a shadow spokesman—even that shadow spokesman.
But judge the Opposition not on their words; judge them on their deeds. It is true that they are not in control in this place, but they control many, indeed perhaps the majority, of local authorities. When the Labour party is in control at local level, its actions certainly do not match the promise of the new Jerusalem painted by the hon. Member for Oldham, West.
It is true that the housing authority in Nottingham has a Programme of upgrading the heating provision of its properties, and that recently it has encouraged council tenants to have central heating installed on a rent-added basis to pay for it. To be fair, that is good and I acknowledge it. But it is Labour's choice of priorities that I challenge. I suspect from what we have seen and read about some of the more lunatic Labour authorities that the choice is often made with the old and cold a low priority compared, for example, with their avowed intent to have all the trappings, such as race advisers, equal opportunity watchdogs, et al, rather than devote those large sums to home improvement, particularly for the elderly.
I understand that it has been estimated that central heating can be provided for perhaps £1,000 to £1,200 per home. On that basis, about 20 homes for the elderly could be properly heated for the cost of just one of the planned snoopers. It is not only the Labour authorities' overbearing obsession with bureaucracy, but their slavish devotion to public sector new-build before all else that militates against the ability to upgrade more council homes than they are tackling at present. They claim that they could do more if only the Government would let them spend all their capital receipts. It is much more to the point to ask whether they are getting value from what they spend now.
It is the positive discouragement by Labour authorities of private sector development and the positive lack of encouragement to use all other agencies of provision other than themselves as landlords that diverts resources which can and should be used to improve the quality of existing housing stock, particularly the homes of the elderly. Whatever we spend on gas, electricity or coal, if a house is badly insulated or the elderly are physically unable to do the routine precautionary things that we younger adults take for granted, the old will remain cold.

Mr. Allen McKay: If the hon. Gentleman feels so strongly, as I am sure he does, about insulation, why has he not said anything against his Government, who stopped the insulation programme under the new social security legislation?

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: No doubt the hon. Gentleman will elaborate on that point, but there are other ways—[Interruption.] I have not ducked this matter. If hon. Members refer to my earlier remarks as reported in Hansard, they will find that I said that I hoped that my Government would do more. I take the matter no further than that.
This issue is not for the Government alone, nor is it for the Government and local authorities alone. In common humanity, we all can and should make a contribution. I pay a sincere tribute to the initiative and on-going support for the old and cold given by our local newspaper, the Nottingham Evening Post. In December 1985 that news paper sought to harness the basic good will of Nottingham's people and raised nearly £12,000 to help 250 special cases of need. This year, it is running a similar fund to assist not only the special hardship cases brought to its attention but, when necessary, to provide support for those who clearly are in need of such help and, for whatever reason, fall outside the qualifying categories.
No matter how clever we think we are here in Parliament, there will always be such marginally excluded persons. It is splendid that this is still a society which cares enough voluntarily to seek to fill that gap. The staff of that newspaper have done more than just offer their good offices as a point of collection. They have put together a team of advisers from the DHSS and the county social services department, and have put the Lord Mayor of the city in the chair to deal with cases put before them. The sums needed may not be large. They have set an upper limit of £100. That appears to be satisfactory and is based upon the helpful advice of senior DHSS advisers.
The paper was swift to react to the Minister of State's announcement yesterday. A coupon will appear in today's edition of the Nottingham Evening Post, dealing with the Government's special payment initiative, and, obviously,


the newspaper's own care-line service for the old and cold. I hope that that action will be repeated throughout the country by similar newspapers.
I also pay tribute to one of our local industrial giants which has a social conscience. The Boots company has joined the newspaper's initiative and provided 500 special hypothermia warning thermometers carrying details of emergency telephone numbers as well as easily followed advice if the room temperature falls to an unacceptable level. I am not a religious person, but a certain phrase readily comes to mind:
Blessed are they that give.

Mr. Frank Cook: Will the hon. Gentleman contemplate that, for the purpose of the regulations, the critical temperature is not that of the room in which an old person is situated, but the temperature read at the National Climatological Message Centre?

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: The hon. Gentleman may be trying to get his remarks on the record. It is unbecoming of him to denigrate the efforts of Boots to direct some help and advice into the room in which an elderly person is trying to keep warm. That seems to me to be sensible advice.
The line for benefit has to be drawn somewhere. Wherever it is drawn, the knee-jerk reaction of the Opposition will be the same. I am concerned that, although I can defend the line in normal circumstances, the present arctic conditions must be a nightmare to those who fall marginally outside our safety net. I acknowledge that an old-age pensioner with a few pounds less than the heating allowance from an occupational pension scheme might find himself outside that safety net for help. I wonder, too, whether elderly people who have just a little over that £500 savings limit should not be advised, perhaps, to pay in advance some of those heating bills to avoid exclusion under our present scheme.
As the Prime Minister rightly said yesterday, a savings limit has always existed. The Labour party has no right whatever to carp at the present £500 limit. I hope that the Government will use their best endeavours to the limit of the legal restraints upon them to ensure that elderly people do not lose out through ignorance of the provisions that we seek to make. On those grounds, I reject the Opposition's motion and welcome the Government's reasoned amendment.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: It is regrettable that the House must debate this matter. It should have been settled many years ago. The yah-booing that sometimes occurs in the Chamber on issues such as this fills me with despair. In particular, those well-heeled people, company directors, those who have good jobs and those who have never experienced the difficulties of the kind that we are talking about, who shout abuse at hon. Members who sensitively raise these matters, fill me with despair. That has happened often this afternoon.
Although past Labour Governments did a reasonable job up to a point, they did not do enough. No Government have done enough. Our Labour people began the process, but they were not able to complete it. Ordinary working men and women who have spent their entire lives helping to create the wealth of this country face death because they

cannot keep warm. Obviously, we all die sooner or later, but we do not need to hasten the process through people not being able to keep warm in their little homes.
It is a scandal and a disgrace that, in this day and age, we must discuss this matter again because, outside, people are faced with death through hypothermia. It is a scandal that, once again, the House faces this sort of debate.
Each and every one of us has a responsibility. None of us has done enough, not only for the elderly, but for young people who every night are getting under cardboard boxes, mainly in London. They have come here seeking employment from areas such as Liverpool, Glasgow, Wales and the north-east. They have found neither a job nor anywhere to sleep.
During the last spell of severe weather I said in the House that emergency measures should be taken. Once again the voluntary bodies began to help. We owe a debt of gratitude to those people. What would we do without the Salvation Army and rectors opening church halls? Tory Members, especially the Prime Minister, love the concept of voluntary bodies. I, too, like voluntary bodies, but we should not need voluntary bodies for this. It is the responsibility of each and every hon. Member to ensure that legislation is passed so that such debates are not necessary.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) referred to the White Paper which he introduced when he was Secretary of State for Energy. What did it say? One line at the beginning gives the first priority for energy policy. It states that our objective shold be to ensure that
everyone can afford adequate heat and light at home.
They do not have that, although some do. Those of us with elderly relatives must help them, and rightly so, because we are more fortunate. But all elderly people do not have relatives. Many are wholly alone and have nothing except state assistance.
I heard the Prime Minister say—[Interruption.] I am coming to that. There is an old saying among my class that the poor always help the poor, and my God they do. At this moment poor people on the streets of Liverpool are still looking after other poor people. When there is a funeral in the road and the old person is without any assistance, everybody rallies around and does his best to help. Those people also give assistance in all sorts of other directions. Yes, the poor help the poor, but I thought that we were trying to create a society and a world—I say this as a Christian—where those at the bottom of the ladder should not have to live in desperate circumstances. I thought that we believed in compassion. The Prime Minister is supposed to believe in compassion.
I shall never forget, to the day I die, the Prime Minister outside No. 10 having the audacity to read the prayer of St. Francis of Assisi. He said:
Where there is despair let me sow hope;
Where there is darkness let me sow light;
Where there is sadness let me sow joy…
To understand rather than to be understood.
To love rather than to be loved.
My goodness, when I think about it, this is an occasion when the right hon. Lady's compassion should be so overriding that she and all other hon. Members should say, "Never mind what previous Governments did or did not do. We will ensure that from now on there will be no question of people dying from cold, poverty or misery." That is what she should say if she believes in the prayer of St. Francis.

Mr. Frank Cook: Will my hon. Friend call to mind the first line of St. Francis's prayer, which states:
Lord make me an instrument of thy peace
and speculate briefly on how well the Prime Minister has not been that?

Mr. Heffer: I did not want to quote all of the prayer, but I agree with my hon. Friend that, since the Government came to power, instead of peace we have had confrontation.
Last night I saw a brief television programme which reported on district heating in Sweden. Various local authorities have urged us to persuade the Government to accept the principle of district heating. We have done nothing about it. The only district heating that ever existed was from a power station into Dolphin square, and when the power station closed, even that closed. It was a marvellous system, and if it can be done for one area, it can be done in all our main cities. Incidentally, we can put our people to work introducing such a system. That would create employment and at the same time ensure that people have proper heating in their homes.
We should ensure that no block of flats sinks below a certain heating level. That is done even in New York, where there is a much more vicious system than we have, although we are moving rapidly in that direction.
Then there is the £500 rule. Some hon. Members probably spend more than £500 a month on meals.

Mr. Nicholls: Like the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody).

Mr. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman may.

Mr. Heffer: I do not. I merely watch other hon. Members and—

Mr. Nicholls: What about the hon. Lady?

Mr. Heffer: It does not matter which hon. Members they are, but I know that when they leave here for their restaurants they spend a great deal of money. They spend more money on one meal than some of our people have to live on for a month. That is the greedy, selfish society in which we live. Old people save for their funeral and if they go on a little holiday, for example a tour, at least half of that £500 will be spent. It is a scandal.
I shall not make a long speech, because I have made all the important points. The position is terrible and we must do something about it. I appeal to all hon. Members on both sides to say, "The £5 is a beginning, but it should be paid automatically over a period of time, not merely for one week. That should be changed." From now on we should say that it is not good enough, that we will introduce an entirely new system and end the old system once and for all so that never again will we have to hold a debate like this. It is shameful that the House is forced to debate in such a way.

7 pm

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: If I cannot agree with every conclusion drawn by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), I can certainly say that nobody who heard him on this occasion, and who has heard him on previous occasions, perhaps long before he came into the House, can doubt for one moment the sincerity of the way in which he puts forward his arguments. There is at least one other area of common ground. It is that the hon. Gentleman at least said that he

was not trying to pretend, as others have pretended in this debate, that when his Government were in office everything that they did about pensions was absolutely right and as good as it could have been. That remark has perhaps more significance than the hon. Gentleman might allow, because there is nothing wrong or unnecessarily adversarial in pointing out what previous Governments have done.
Those pensioners who will avidly queue up to buy copies of Hansard to read our deliberations today may do so to find out what they can expect from the Government, but also to find out what they can expect from the Labour party if it is returned to office. To that extent they are entitled to ask, "What was the record; what was the history?" Therefore, there is some significance in saying that we have to look not just to the future, as the hon. Gentleman would have us do, but that we are entitled to look to the past.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), who opened the debate, started it in the way that we have heard before. Without being uncharitable, I expect that we will hear it again. He gave us a foretaste of it yesterday. He did not concentrate on this extremely severe weather and the severe weather payment. He went straight into the attack and talked about the whole of the retirement pension without any persiflage. He said, as he has said on many occasions, that the record of his Government when they were last in office was greatly preferable to the record of this Conservative Administration.
The hon. Gentleman said that yesterday quite succinctly when he told the House:
Is he further aware that if pensions had been increased in line with earnings, as they were under the previous Labour Government, the single pension today would be £8 a week higher and the married pension £12 a week higher".—[Official Report, 13 January 1986: Vol. 108, c. 135.]
He said that quite straightforwardly and quite deliberately. I was not in the slightest bit surprised that the hon. Gentleman was not prepared to let me intervene at that stage, because as he well knows that is simply not the truth. Although the last Labour Government passed legislation to ensure that pensions would be linked to the rise in earnings rather than to prices, they did not implement their own legislation in three of the four years that it should have applied.
The Labour Government did not fail to do that because they lacked compassion or were heartless about the plight of the elderly or the poor, but simply because they could not find the money. I raised a point of order and I apologise for that because I now realise it was somewhat bogus, but when the hon. Member for Oldham, West was obliged to face the fact that they could not find the money, he accused me of having indulged in various sorts of manoeuvres and bogus statistics. He may see it that way, but that was not the way that it was seen by the then Secretary of State for Social Services at a time when the hon. Gentleman was a Minister in the Department of Health and Social Services.
When Pensioners Voice chided the then Secretary of State because the pension issue had been avoided and the Labour Government's legislation was put to one side, the response by the Secretary of State was:
'There is a statutory obligation to take these figures (i.e., earnings) into account, which was done, but no statutory obligation to get it right.'
That statement was made by the Minister under whom the hon. Gentleman was doubtless proud to serve. There was


no mention by the hon. Gentleman that his party's record was anything other than sweetness and light. That is what the Secretary of State said and did when he found that his own sincere best wishes were incapable of being implemented. No wonder the hon. Gentleman was not prepared to let me intervene to put the record straight.
It must be said that that was not the first fiddle on a grand scale which the last Labour Government perpetrated. An even bigger fiddle was the one when the method of calculating pension increases was switched from the historic method to the forecasting method. When that was done it was a real blow to pensioners, but we did not hear too much from the hon. Gentleman about that. If he had wanted to turn his mind to it, I have no doubt that he would have been able to tell us that in Barbara Castle's diaries she admitted that the reason why that method of calculating benefit was changed was simply to save money. She went on to say that she regarded that as not an honourable thing to do. She said that it was done to save money pure and simple. That was the reason, and pensioners suffered because of it.

Mrs. Margaret Beckett: Whatever the details of the matters about which the hon. Gentleman speaks, he may be aware that one reason why my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) might be reasonably content with the last Labour Government's actions on pensions was that, as the hon. Gentleman has been told over and over again, at the end of the lifetime of that Government pensions had increased in real terms by 20 per cent. Given that under this Government pensions have increased in real terms by 3 per cent., perhaps the hon. Gentleman could tell us how happy he is with his Government's record.

Mr. Nicholls: I shall certainly address that point. The hon. Lady simply cannot avoid the fact that pensioners' expectations were raised to an extremely high level, because they were told that their pensions would be kept in line with earnings. In a nutshell, they were not, and to that extent pensioners were deprived of the money that they had expected to receive. That was the reality. The hon. Member for Walton at least impliedly admitted that the last Labour Government had done something that was, shall we say, less than perfect. If there was any validity in the point that the hon. Lady tries to make against a background of inflation at the time that was wrecking pensioners' savings, presumably the hon. Member for Oldham, West would have admitted that. However, he did not because he knew how ignoble his record on pensions was.
The other point that the hon. Lady will obviously want to bear in mind is the consequence for the Labour party once the change in the method of calculation has been made. To hear the hon. Lady, one would think that pensioners would have said, "We may have been diddled, and the Government may have avoided their own legislation, but is it not marvellous, because look at all the money that we have?"
At the time that the discussions were taking place in Cabinet, as recorded by Mrs. Castle, in December 1975, only a few weeks before, the hon. Member for Oldham, West was not promising free television licences or free television sets. A matter of weeks before those Cabinet discussions he had to come to the House for the second year running and announced that there would be no

Christmas bonus. That was £10 a year, at a time when inflation was almost in the realms of hyper-inflation. The Labour Government were so stuck for cash that they could not even pay the Christmas bonus. If the hon. Gentleman was in any doubt about how pensioners felt about what he had done, he certainly knew fairly soon afterwards, because in the following year, in March 1976, the hon. Gentleman was addressing a meeting of pensioners—

Mr. George Foulkes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I know that it is in order to refer from time to time to the past in order to illustrate the current situation and compare it to the past, but is it in order to go on and on for a complete speech without referring to the issue before the House?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Nothing out of order has been said so far.

Mr. Nicholls: I can well understand the hon. Gentleman's embarrassment and it is nice that he has decided to join our deliberations at a relatively late stage.

Mr. Frank Cook: My hon. Friend has been present for longer than the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Foulkes: I was here earlier on two occasions, sitting in another part of the House just to confuse Conservative Members.

Mr. Nicholls: By getting indignant about his own record, the hon. Gentleman shows that he is far more confused than any of my hon. Friends are likely to be. We have the background of two major fiddles in the way in which pension was calculated, and even the Christmas bonus was removed. That was at a time when the hon. Member for Oldham, West was not in his public school, languishing around the towers of academia, but was a member of the Government, because he was a Social Security Minister. At least it has to be said that there are other Opposition Members who have a rather better grasp of the figures in their own brief than has the hon. Member for Oldham, West. They know the reality.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West would do well to consider the speeches of his hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). I remember that in one debate the hon. Member for Birkenhead intervened during a speech that I was making and asked:
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that many Opposition Members would not seek to defend all the actions of the Labour Government, especially the manoeuvrings on pensions?"—[Official Report, 22 April 1985; Vol. 96, c. 666.]
That was not a distorted use of figures, of which I was accused by the hon. Member for Oldham, West. The most knowledgeable Opposition speaker on social security matters is not here today, but when he has felt able to take part in debates of this sort the hon. Member for Birkenhead has admitted, straightforwardly and frankly, that the manoeuvrings of the present Opposition on pensions—

Mr. Frank Cook: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understood that we were discussing the exceptionally severe weather payments scheme. Is it necessary for the House to have to listen at such nauseous length—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Brief and relevant interventions are a definite and essential part of our proceedings. A number of hon. Members are anxious to


catch my eye. If there are many more interventions, their chances will be put back, particularly if the interventions are from those who are hoping to catch my eye. As for the hon. Member's point of order, nothing has been said that is out of order. It is better to leave the Chair to decide whether or not something is out of order.

Mr. Nicholls: It probably does not need saying, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but for the benefit of the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) I will say it, and I will say it slowly, too. The case put forward by the hon. Member for Oldham, West is that policies that have completely failed in the past to provide pensioners with a proper rate of pension, out of which they can meet their commitments, including their fuel bills, should be adopted again. As they have failed, Conservative Members should point out, not that Opposition Members do not care about the fate of the unemployed or pensioners, but that a scheme and a system for the future is being put forward which in the past completely failed to deliver the goods.
Another matter that we might have expected to hear something about today is how to finance a policy that would provide more money for fuel bills in the summer and in the winter, irrespective of whether the temperature justifies it. We do not know how it will be funded. There were a number of interventions during the speech of the hon. Member for Oldham, West to try to find out whether the commitments that he told us about today are part of the £24·5 billion or whether they are part of the deal that was done at Bishops Stortford. We did not manage to find out. However, that money would have to be found from somewhere.
What bedevilled the last Labour Government and worked to the signal disadvantage of pensioners was that Labour's plan, as then implemented, had not been properly costed. There is no reason to think that Labour's plan today has been properly costed.
During the few moments that I have for light relief I like to read Tribune. In many ways it is an excellent journal. Often one finds in it items of great interest. On 16 July 1982 it contained one particularly interesting article. I am sure Opposition Members know what it is, but I want to share it with other hon. Members. I appreciate the Opposition's embarrassment about what I am about to read out. The article said:
A major concern…must be the failure to cost adequately or to make a priority of the social programme.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West may think that those words have a familiar ring. I can save him the embarrassment of suggesting that he wrote those words, because he did not. They were written by his wife. At a time when Labour wives are capable of completely rewriting the defence policy of the party, it seems to be not unfair that Labour wives should make a significant contribution here. When the hon. Member for Oldham, West returns home tonight, he will know that his wife will be able to tell him that there has been a signal failure and a complete inability to cost the programme. We have seen all this before. We do not need to look into the future when we can look into the recent past and see what has been done.
There is one point to which I should return. On both this and previous occasions—and unless the hon. Member for Oldham, West undergoes a damascene

conversion today there will be future occasions—I have criticised the hon. Gentleman for making extravagant promises. However, despite the fact that the hon. Gentleman has a use of language and hyperbole that would make the late Savonarola look like a master of the understatement, there is one thing today that the hon. Gentleman did not come to the House to do. That was left to the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn).
The hon. Member for Oldham, West did not promise to abolish standing charges. The Labour party ought at least to be given the credit for that. When all else fails, they will churn that out as well. On this occasion the hon. Member for Oldham, West did not do so, but the right hon. Member for Chesterfield did. He has a reputation among his colleagues for looking back into history at those bits of the Labour party's programme that were successful and taking the credit for them, but if there were things that the last Labour Government did of which he disapproved, he tries to dissociate himself from them. The right hon. Gentleman was against the abolition of standing charges. However, he tried to say that he had been in favour of abolition, but that he was unable to convince his colleagues in the Government. Sometimes it is necessary to put the record straight.
The report of the special group that was set up to look at ways to help the poor with their fuel costs considered a number of alternatives and in due course produced a report. The foreword to that report was penned by none other than the right hon. Member for Chesterfield. In that foreword, though not in the report, commenting on matters like the abolition of standing charges, the right hon. Gentleman said:
After considering the Group's Report, the Government have concluded that none of these possibilities…by way of alternatives…offers a satisfactory way of helping poor consumers with their fuel bills."—[Official Report, 25 July 1983; Vol. 46, c. 843.]
It is not without significance that when a party takes office even Messiahs like the right hon. Member for Chesterfield sometimes find that they have to take reality into account.

Mr. Barron: During the winter of 1976–77 my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) gave a 25 per cent. discount on electricity bills of over £20 and took standing charges into consideration. Does the hon. Gentleman think that this Administration ought to do likewise in this severe weather?

Mr. Nicholls: It would have been a good idea if the hon. Gentleman had put that question to his right hon. Friend. It would have been even more impressive if that line had been adopted by his right hon. Friend when he was in office. However, the right hon. Member for Chesterfield considered the abolition of standing charges and decided that he was unable to do that.
If the Opposition were to acknowledge the link with the wealth that provides money to do all that is needed for the elderly, they would take a leaf out of the book of the hon. Member for Birkenhead and look at the answer that he received from the Treasury in April of last year, which shows that the way to get money out of the rich is to reduce their taxes so that more money for the elderly can be generated—[Interruption.] If the Opposition were really concerned about producing the necessary money, that is what they would take into account, but the difficulty is that despite the strictures of the hon. Member for Walton the truth hurts so much that the yobbo tendency on the Opposition Benches has to start howling me down.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I shall not take up what was said by the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls). However, in all my years in this House I have rarely come across a speech that was so arrogant and superficial at one and the same time.
This opportune debate arises from the United Kingdom wide weather emergency. Observers in Scotland are not too cynical if they believe that the Government's decision yesterday and the holding of this debate today arise from the fact that the south of England is affected by the severe weather. Many people in Scotland have formed the view that it is only when England sneezes that some attention is directed towards the pneumonia from which people in Scotland suffer in so many ways, whether it be in terms of industry, unemployment or heating allowances. Hypothermia and distress, we must remind ourselves, existed before this present cold snap. We will continue to have exceptional weather conditions from time to time. So I stigmatise right at the start the action which has been taken by the Government today as utterly inadequate.
Four years ago I started my compaign for a cold climate allowance which would take cognisance of the fact that the United Kingdom has different climatic zones and yet people have to live on the same pensions and social security beneifts, regardless of the outlay which they have to make. When I did so, I must confess that I did not expect that three or four years later the whole question of heating allowances would have secured such a high position in parliamentary debate. Last year it was the temperature inversion that brought the colder weather to the south of England which first directed the attention of many hon. Members to the problem of heating allowances.
Heating allowances and hypothermia have been with us for a long time. The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) was a Minister in the last Labour Government and in 1979 he was penitent enough to confess, in an article in The Observer, that on superior instructions he had participated in a cover-up in terms of the effects that hypothermia might have. I am glad to see that he has now been converted to the cause.
There is no doubt that people die of hypothermia, but for every one person who dies tens or hundreds of thousands live in extreme discomfort, where they may question whether life is worth living. Death by hypothermia might be a release for many who live in houses where the temperature has dropped to such a level that they are miserable. It is at this time too that hospitals begin to fill with elderly people who are affected by the cold and who consequently suffer other illnesses, such as bronchitis, which remain with them throughout the winter.
I suggested in my cold climate Bill two years ago that the United Kingdom ought to be divided into four climatic zones and that a regular payment be made throughout the year to take account of these climatic differences. The Bill had considerable support on both sides of the House but was unfortunately resisted by the Ministers in the Department of Health and Social Security, who now find themselves, for the third successive year, in a mess of their own making because they are unwilling to find the resources or to use their intelligence to devise a scheme which would address the reality of the problem.
In Scotland heating is of great importance. Professor Markus of Strathclyde university in 1979 made the point that the Scottish climate is significantly more severe than

the English climate. He said that in terms of air temperature, wind exposure, rain and available sunshine the Scottish climate was different from the climate of the United Kingdom as a whole. Expressing the difference in terms of the cost of heating a house, he said that it would cost 20 per cent. more to heat a house in Glasgow than to heat a comparable house in Bristol, and that it would cost 30 per cent. more in Aberdeen. Those are the facts. It has not been denied that it is more expensive to heat a house in Scotland. So fuel consumption goes up. Scots consume about 21 per cent. more electricity than people in the south, 18·2 per cent. more gas and 15·5 per cent. more solid fuel.
The problem that we face in most parts of the United Kingdom is that, because, in the 1940s and especially in the 1950s and 1960s, energy costs were so low, houses were not designed to be properly insulated against the cold, so many of our modern houses are concrete shells which exude heat that is bought expensively by the people within to the atmosphere outside.
Although the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) mentioned the nuclear power plant which was sufficient to raise the temperature in its vicinity by four degrees, many people living in council housing schemes, in particular, find that it takes a lot of heat, which they must pay for, to raise the ambient temperature to a comfortable level. House designs therefore are at fault. It must be remembered that 50 per cent. of Scottish houses were built to 1919 standards and 93 per cent. to 1975 standards. This is one reason why Scotland is in its present position in terms of illness statistics and why hypothermia frequently figures on death certificates.
The average winter in Scotland probably last two months longer than the winter in the south, so we must take account of this. This is why I find the Labour party's proposal for an extra £5 over the winter period unfair. It does not take account of the climatic differences in Scotland. Someone in Torquay will get exactly the same amount as someone in Shetland. It is also unfair that the period should extend only from December to March. Our winters last from November to April and these days sometimes we are lucky to get a decent spell of weather in May.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: As Member For a constituency which, for the second year running, is, I suspect, colder than Scotland, I should like to know what the hon. Gentleman would do under his scheme if it were found that for quite long periods parts of the south of England were colder than parts of Scotland.

Mr. Wilson: Under my scheme it would be possible to change the climatic zones. They were drawn up on an easy, simple and scientifically estimated basis from meteorological information available, but if it could be proved that one area was considerably colder than another there is no reason why it should not be upgraded appropriately. If one was to go for the perfect solution, each house should be assessed in terms of insulation and that would be the fairest way; but the Department of Health and Social Security would probably resist that on the basis of cost. So one must try to find a system which is reasonably fair to all concerned.
A point has also been made about the help that the Government have been giving. I find the Government's scheme penny-pinching and deceitful because it gives the


impression that help will be available, help which for many people, even with the announcement made yesterday, will not emerge because of the restrictive way in which the scheme has been drawn up.
At the urging of a Scottish nationalist councillor, the Badenoch and Strathspey district council has an additional local authority top-up scheme by which £3 a week is made available in periods when the temperature is minus 2·5 deg C., but more interestingly, Guernsey, between October and May, already gives a standard heating allowance of £6 a week and has just increased this by an extra £12 a week while the bad weather remains. So the authorities in Guernsey have been far more generous than the United Kingdom Government.
The plain fact—the hon. Member for Oldham, West fairly made this point—is that in the United Kingdom pensions are exceptionally low compared with those in France, Belgium, West Germany and many other European countries in relation to earnings. In France the pension is equivalent to 60 per cent. of average earnings, in Belgium 60 per cent., in West Germany 50 per cent. and in the United Kingdom 26·5 per cent. This shows that those on pensions and supplementary benefit will suffer most. Perhaps that is why the death rate in winter rises by some 20 per cent. among old people and the very young.
What we require is a system which is much fairer and more coherent, such as the one that I have outlined, but one also where automatic payments are made without people having to claim and without all this confusing jiggery-pokery about assessment of criteria and need and all the consequent bureaucracy. The Government said that they were cutting the red tape. Who was it who first produced that red tape? We were informed in two previous debates in the House that this would be so.
As an editorial has said, under the existing scheme the Government are playing roulette with the lives of the old and the poor.

Mr. Lewis Stevens: I agree with some of the points made by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson). It is important to retain a separate payment that varies according to weather conditions. Without it, some areas, such as those in Scotland, could not receive what is essentially a payment for that which is different. Such a payment is important to pensioners and other people on low incomes and supplementary benefit. If we introduced a scheme paying £5 a week throughout the winter, as the Opposition would like, many people would still have greater needs in a sudden cold spell, such as this, which result in a vicious rise in heating costs. People become used to a certain amount of money coming in. If an extra payment were made throughout the winter, there would still be a demand for more money. The amount of fuel used in badly insulated houses rapidly accelerates as the temperature drops and this is shown as an exponential on a graph. The Opposition have made detrimental remarks, but that fact must be understood.
The House should consider the problems of the elderly and others on supplementary benefit. The publicity machine which has operated, largely because of political antagonism, has brought home in its peculiar fashion the problems of cold and what old people should do. In recent years, the DHSS and voluntary bodies have done much to

advertise what should be done. We should push advice and instructions to old people on how to get warm as hard as we can.
This sudden cold spell followed an extremely mild December, when most of us strolled around wondering whether winter would ever come. But we have been hit dramatically in the past few days. It is hard to understand that some people ignore the fact that heating payments are part of general expenditure. The Opposition say, "We shall give extra pensions. We shall pay £5 automatically across the board." Yet they know that they must cost those measures and include them among general expenditure. What Labour Members want to do and what they will be able to do, should they ever unfortunately have the opportunity, are very different. People remember that many of the expectations for the 1974–79 period were not fulfilled.
Inevitably, if a Labour Government ever give away such amounts of money, it will catch up with them. The odds are that, if Labour went ahead with the social service and general expenditure programmes proposed, it would not be able to meet the costs, inflation would be fuelled and there would be cuts. Almost certainly this would store up tremendous repayment problems in future years, which would hit the lowest paid and those on supplementary benefit. It is important that the DHSS, voluntary services and other organisations carry on their education programme, for the elderly in particular.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Elderly people know how to keep warm. They are not less intelligent than we are, but they lack the means to keep warm. There were 84,000 severe weather payments to applicants in Scotland during the exceptionally cold weather in February last year. I suspect that perhaps three times that number wanted that payment but did not receive it. The hon. Member should not lecture elderly people. They are as intelligent as any hon. Member.

Mr. Stevens: In no way do I wish to lecture or underestimate the intelligence of old people, many of whom are more intelligent than many of us. But the importance of heating is not always easily recognised by some elderly people. They are reluctant to heat their houses as they should. During my youth, many people were prepared to keep their homes at a temperature that we would today condemn as being far too low. We were used to having no central heating. We were used to bedrooms that were so cold that the bedclothes felt damp. That was reality for many people, not just for those who were very poor. This resulted in a high incidence of respiratory and bronchial problems, especially for children, which could have been relieved had people understood what was needed. Many people accepted the fact that they lived in a warm room during the day and went to bed in cold conditions. Some elderly people are still reluctant to change. The future of insulation work should be considered. Some houses built since the last war have poor insulation. Flimsy wooden structures and lack of insulation are problems.
I have some doubts about another matter. Although the exceptionally severe weather payments can work well and are given where they are needed, there is a problem with the strict weekly basis on which the system operates. I have not costed the effect of a change in this system, but I believe that the DHSS should take account of any period


of seven days during which the temperature drops to a certain level rather than use the present system. I should have thought that any seven-day period of exceptionally cold weather should qualify for exceptionally severe weather payments.
I congratulate the Department on introducing a much simpler system, which will make payments automatically available. I welcome also the underwriting of some of the extra costs incurred by voluntary bodies during this period. It is important that elderly people and others should be able to benefit from Government support of voluntary organisations.
Labour Members condemn the Government for what they have not done, but they have done a lot. They introduced new schemes such as these exceptionally severe weather payments. They extended the conditions under which supplementary benefit heating additions were paid to all people over 65 years, whereas before they were limited to those over 80 years. All pensioners who are on supplementary benefit are entitled to heating additions. That covers many more people. The payment is automatic.
The Government have recognised the needs of the elderly and of those on supplementary benefit. They have kept supplementary benefit rates and pensions ahead of inflation. Labour Members have tried to give the impression that theirs is the caring party, but when it had the opportunity, it failed to look after the people as well as we are today.

Mr. Kevin Barron: I should like to carry on from where the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Stevens) left off in relation to what the Labour Government did. We have heard in today's debate and yesterday at Question Time about the Labour Government's attitude to fuel poverty. In the winter of 1976–77 the Labour Government improved the supplementary benefits scheme by the introduction of an electricity discount scheme. It was to cost £25 million and to assist about 3 million people on supplementary benefit. How the hon. Gentleman can say that such action in 1976 was non-action is beyond me.
The scheme applied to people on supplementary benefit and on family income supplement. There was a single payment of £5 to each family and a 25 per cent. discount on all electricity bills which were more than £20 for the winter quarter. That scheme took into account the standing charge that this Government have refused to consider. It also took account of the fuel cost adjustment which was part of the cost that had to be paid for the oil crisis of the early 1970s.
Under the 1978–79 scheme, which was extended to cover those receiving rent rebates, people were allowed to claim discount on one winter electricity bill. It was estimated that that scheme would cover approximately 4·5 million people. Although we cannot make a direct comparison with the exceptionally severe weather payments, only about 500,000 people are eligible to claim. Last year. fewer than 500,000 claimed the payments. It is fraudulent for Conservative Members to say that the Labour Government did not attempt to do anything about people's problems in severe weather. I think that the opposite could be said.
The Prime Minister told the House that the Labour Government spent only about £90 million in 1978–79, their last year of office, and that this Government were

spending about £400 million per annum. Given the number of people who are eligible to claim the severe weather payment, and given the increase in energy costs since 1979, it is likely that the Labour Government did more to help people in 1978–79 than this Government have done over the last 12 months or are prepared to do under the new scheme.
This morning I spoke to people in Rotherham citizens advice bureau about problems in my constituency and neighbouring constituencies in south Yorkshire. There has been a lot in the press about severe weather payments. Many people who were contacting the citizens advice bureau this morning were saying that they had children of over two years of age but, according to what they had read in the newspapers, they were not eligible to claim the severe weather payment. Other people in receipt of different social security benefits, such as invalidity benefit, were also complaining that they could not claim. Indeed, many people in my constituency are trapped in their homes, and the severe weather payment will not satisfy their immediate needs.
The only leaflets that the citizens advice bureau had to distribute were leaflets which were given to it by Age Concern and which it has had for some time. I understand that, even when the debate started this afternoon, the DHSS still had not issued leaflets about the new statutory scheme. There are none in the citizens advice bureau or the libraries in my area, and presumably there are none in the offices of the DHSS. It is a disgrace, considering the weather conditions, that no one can contact local DHSS offices to find out who is eligible for the severe weather payment. We have to rely on the press—not always a good source of information—to try to glean the information about the help that is supposedly coming from the Department.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to add to his questions to the Minister a question as to why DHSS offices, as of this afternoon, had not received instructions about how to deal with the matter. It is not surprising, therefore, that other agencies do not know what to do.

Mr. Barron: That is right. I have put down a question for Monday to find out when people will get the payment. There is confusion because the Department does not seem to have done its job of informing the public about who is eligible to claim benefit.
The hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) spoke about pensions and tried to make the case that the Labour Government did not do what they had promised to do about old-age pensions. As everyone knows, people rely on their pensions as their main source of income, if they are not on supplementary benefit, to pay their bills.
I repeat that, during the five years of the Labour Government, pensions increased in real terms by a massive 20 per cent. The hon. Gentleman was trying to make the case that pensions then were too high. Presumably he now argues that because they have gone up by only 3 per cent. in real terms over the last seven years it would be better to increase supplementary benefit and other means-tested benefits instead of linking pension increases to prices or earnings. If a link had been established with earnings in 1979, when the Labour Government left office, pensions for single people would now be £8 higher, and those for married couples would be about £12 higher. I am sure that


that link and the increases that it would have brought would have alleviated the fear of many people about their ability to pay the energy bills that will result from the present arctic conditions.
Pensions have increased by only 3 per cent. in real terms over the past seven years. They have increased by about 98 per cent. in cash terms since the Government came into office. The cost of gas, however, has increased by 134·7 per cent. since November 1978. We should not be too surprised about that because the Government have not followed the lead of the Labour Government in selling gas at cost price to the consumer. The Labour Government's policy meant that there was no need to introduce a discount for gas consumers during the winter despite the discount that was introduced for consumers of electricity. This Government have placed a levy on gas prices so as to bring moneys directly to the Treasury.
Presumably this was one of the ways of funding £3 million per annum to the 20 per cent. in our society who are classed as better off then the rest. The massive income tax cuts that the Government have introduced have had to be funded, and it is immoral that so many people are worried about their ability to pay for their energy bills during the winter, or will be unable to do so in any event. Our gas supplies should have been a gift to the nation, but they are being used instead as a means of securing moneys for the Treasury.
The same comments can be made about the electricity industry. The cost of electricity has increased by 99 per cent. since November 1978, and the Government's use of external financing limits means that about £1·4 billion per annum is finding its way to the Treasury's coffers instead of being directed elsewhere in society. A direct energy tax has been placed on the electricity industry, but at the same time there is talk of a £5 severe weather payment.
The cost of coal has increased by 107 per cent. since November 1978, and the price of all three sources of energy has increased by a greater amount than the old-age pension. The average increase in the cost of energy has been 116·1 per cent. since the Labour Government left office in 1979.
The Government took a welcome step forward yesterday when they said that everyone who is eligible to benefit from the new severe weather payments scheme would receive payment for this week. By taking that action, they are admitting, however, that the new scheme is a failure. Unfortunately, potential recipients are not convinced that they will be able to obtain the moneys that the Government say will be made available.
My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), who opened the debate on behalf of the Opposition, observed that in many areas of Britain there was cold weather last week and that this week saw the coldest night for over 40 years. He explained that many areas will not be eligible for moneys from the new statutory severe weather payment scheme.
It would be better for all concerned if yesterday's announcement had, applied for the next four weeks, for example. That would enable us to say that energy bills could be increased by £20 more than consumers would normally expect to pay for the quarter without them being afraid of being unable to pay. There are many who are frightened to receive their quarterly bills, and we cannot expect them to heat their homes adequately during this

period of exceptionally cold weather if we give them no assurance that the Government will make moneys available to enable them to pay their bills. Yesterday's decision probably had more to do with the heat of the political debate and less to do with the low temperatures at Westminster, Scotland and elsewhere. That is no way to protect the many who are living in inadequate homes on inadequate incomes from the present severe winter.
As most hon. Members know, I represent a coal mining constituency, and during the miners' strike there were many who found it difficult to pay their bills because of their lack of income. I received many requests from my constituents to support their request for pre-payment meters to be installed in their homes. Many of those who have pre-payment meters had them installed because they found that they were unable to pay quarterly bills. It is all very well to promise that £5 will be forthcoming for this week's energy bill, but that will not mean very much to those who pay through pre-payment meters. Many of those on supplementary benefit or on low incomes have to put 50p pieces or £1 coins into pre-payment meters. Are social service officers checking to ensure that families at risk—for example, those with young children or old people—are not in jeopardy? Only electricity boards are likely to know of those who have pre-payment meters, and with the present severe weather conditions the position of these families is extremely worrying.
The Minister for Social Security, who opened the debate for the Government, made a speech which is destined to return him to the Government Back Benches in the near future. He referred to the miners' strike, and the Prime Minister spoke about it during Prime Minister's questions yesterday. Conservative Members are obsessed with miners and miners' strikes, and I wish to remind them that during the strikes of 1972 and 1974, when I was a coal miner, the miners ensured that coal was supplied to the homes with young children and old people throughout the country. Coal was supplied to hospitals and schools. The transportation of coal during those strikes was as efficient as at any other time.
During the most recent miners' strike, miners in my constituency were working for £1 a day, sometimes for eight or nine hours a day, to bring coal to pensioners, hospitals and schools. That supply continued for nearly 12 months. When the Under-Secretary of State replies, I challenge him to name one instance in which anyone suffered because of a lack of coal during any of the three miners' strikes in the past 15 years. That challenge extends to individuals' homes, hospitals and schools.

Mr. Robert McCrindle: I recognise that there is no particular virtue in political consistency, but I remind the House, at a time when there is obvious and widespread concern over cold weather and hypothermia, that I am one of the relatively few Conservative Members who has raised this matter consistently. As reference to Hansard will show, I have expressed concern about the adequacy of the system of payments and its operation during the past two winters. I have pressed the Government to improve and to adapt the severe weather payments system. If further evidence is required of my credentials to address the House on this occasion, perhaps I could add that, in June and July last year, when few hon. Members were thinking of this scheme, I was tabling questions about it.
I have no hesitation in saying that the system has caused me a good deal of concern. Although I realise entirely what animated the Government to introduce the scheme in the first place, since its introduction I have had a few questions in my mind as to whether it is the right way to proceed and to solve what all hon. Members must accept is an especially difficult problem.
Having said that, during the past few days and also in the debate today, there has been inadequate appreciation of the efforts that the Government have made to improve upon the scheme that existed last winter. There is no question in my mind that, for all the criticism that has been directed against it, the severe weather payments system of 1986–87 is a considerable advance on the scheme that was rightly criticised last year. When this year's scheme is compared with that which operated a year ago, there is no question that the benefits are better targeted and that there is a better chance that those in greatest need will receive assistance this year.
I positively welcome the fact that there is less distinction between one district and another. That caused great concern last winter when it was discovered that payments could be made in one area when, at the same time, they were disallowed in another area not far distant. For all those reasons, I repeat that the Government are to be congratulated on having moved forward from the system that was criticised by many, including myself, last year.
However, I confess that I am still uneasy about the entire approach to the severe weather payments system. The system continues to depend this year, as it did last year, on two essential features. First, it depends on a particular level of cold. That will always be arbitrary, no matter how it is defined. Secondly, there is uncertainty under this scheme, just as there was under its predecessor, until after the need for heating has passed, as to whether the money will be paid. Those two basic defects in the scheme have not been, and cannot be, improved upon until we consider a different way of assisting a very needy section of the community.
I warmly welcome the decision that was taken this week to the effect that the benefit has already been triggered before this especially cold week is over. Some hon. Members have suggested that that is due mainly to the pressure of public opinion and the press. Be that as it may, I hope that the House will not overlook the fact that the Government have shown a sensitivity to public opinion, and that they have not been prepared to stand on a strict bureaucratic interpretation of the severe weather payments system. To that extent, I respectfully suggest that the Government have received fewer plaudits than they might reasonably have expected.
I should like to underline the welcome that I extend to the assistance given by the Government in relation to the improved supplementary benefit rates, and especially to the general heating additions. It is always tempting to concentrate on the specific matter of the moment, and there can be no doubt that, at present, that is the severe weather payments scheme. However, it would be extremely unfair if we failed to recognise that the scheme is, in effect, the icing on the cake.
Since the Government came to office considerable progress has been made in the basic rates of supplementary benefit and on the general heating additions. Any suggestion that elderly people risking hypothermia are entirely dependent on the severe weather payments system is simply a malicious misrepresentation of that system. The

general heating additions are additional to supplementary benefit and are paid automatically to certain vulnerable groups in the community. They have increased dramatically in the past few years and, most importantly, although this seems to have been almost entirely overlooked in the debate, they are paid not for the one week in the year when the temperature is low, or for the 13 weeks which may or may not constitute winter as defined by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). They are paid for 52 weeks in the year.
I respectfully suggest that if we concentrate solely on the severe weather payments without noting the very real advances that have been made since 1979, we not only overlook a historical fact, but do a disservice to the very people upon whose behalf we are directing our attention to the operation of the severe weather payments system.

Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and I have considerable respect for his record on such matters. I am sure that he will have heard my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) argue earlier that the Government are cutting back with one hand while giving wih the other.
I refer now to the heating allowances which are paid for 52 weeks in the year. Although none of us would accuse the Government of wasting public money by giving to people who do not need it, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise—some of his hon. Friends may not—that that money is paid to people who, by definition, have or are liable to have extra heating needs and extra heating bills for the entire year. That is why they get it. The allowance is not there to meet their needs in exceptionally severe weather.

Mr. McCrindle: I accept that what the hon. Lady says is correct, but I hope that she in turn will accept the point that I was trying to make. To ignore the fact that that assistance is available to the category of people we are discussing throughout the entire year, and to imply hat such people are entirely dependent on the severe weal her payments, would be just as misleading as she rightly suggests I would be if I failed to accept the point that she made in her intervention.
I discount the wild allegations of neglect that the hon. Member for Oldham, West and his hon. Friends in the Opposition have directed against the Government, coming as they do from a party which did not do half as much in office as, in many ways, the present Administration have done. However, thinking for a moment about those who do not participate in our debates but who listen to our deliberations through the columns of the press and the media, I doubt very much whether the Labour party's almost weekly announcement of still more expenditure is calculated either to solve the problem or to impress the respective recipients of the largesse, another instalment of which was announced this week by the hon. Member for Oldham, West.
Showering taxpayers' money like confetti without a recognition of where true need exists is not a service to the elderly. It will not impress people because there is no escaping the fact that the whole tenor of the Opposition's approach to this matter in recent days has shown that they see this as a political weapon rather than feeling the true concern that they would have us believe.
Having made those criticisms of the Opposition's approach, I have to tell the House that I cannot honestly


say that I am wholly satisfied that as a Government we have come anywhere close to solving the problem. It is a particularly difficult problem, and one to which, if we are not careful, we will find ourselves returning year after year. At the heart of the problem is a dilemma represented by a generation of people who like to pay their bills, who cannot tolerate debt and who, as a result, risk hardship and even death rather than turn up the heat. They do not seek the indiscriminate help that the Opposition have promised in the past few days. They seek assurances that some assistance will be forthcoming when it is needed and without all the bureaucratic qualifications.
I suggest to my hon. Friend the Minister that we might do worse than reconsider the whole concept of the special payments system and that we may give some consideration to whether an entirely new approach would be preferable. A system that requires a certain temperature for a certain period can never be wholly satisfactory, fair or consistent. Therefore, I would much prefer to see what I might call a fuel bonus. It is true that about every third winter will be relatively mild and that any payment that is automatic and not dependent on temperature will, arguably be unnecessary in such years. However, the benefit of being able to bring to elderly people the certain knowledge that fixed sum will be paid each winter for extra fuel costs would help to encourage pensioners and others to use their heating knowing before they do that a definite sum will be forthcoming.
Accordingly, I suggest—I do so fully aware that any system, no matter how restrictive, would cost more than the severe weather payments system is likely to cost in this or any other year—that during one week in January and one week in February, perhaps on the basis of a pilot scheme, an additional amount should be added automatically to the supplementary benefit payment of pensioners and others in need of additional heating.
It should be made absolutely clear that such a scheme would be a fuel bonus just as the Christmas bonus for pensioners has now become generally accepted as something that we relate to a particular time of the year. I do not for a moment suggest that it is an ideal solution but I believe that it contains two of the essential elements that are missing from the special payments scheme. Those elements are that it would apply irrespective of the temperature in any particular part of the country and that elderly people would know before they used the energy that a sum of money would be payable at least to help meet additional costs.
My suggestion would be the beginning of a move away from the uncertainty of the special weather payments system towards greater certainty and more ability to use heating apparatus. I sincerely hope that it would also help to end the unseemly scenario of politicians using the hardship of old people as a politial weapon. That, in my judgment, and I suspect in the judgment of millions who may read or listen to our deliberations, is an obscene spectacle and I sincerely hope that the Government will at least explore my suggestion.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) mentioned the previous system of heating payments during periods of extremely severe weather. I agree with

him that the previous system, which operated up to and including last winter, came in for a great deal of deserved criticism because there were variable trigger points which threw up many unfair anomalies whereby in colder climates, such as in parts of Scotland, the temperature had to drop to a considerably lower level than that in the south of England before people qualified for the payment.
I can remember that last winter there was only one calendar month—February—when my constituents qualified for the severe weather payment. I also remember that while the system was in operation I was a member of a delegation of hon. Members who went to see the Minister to complain about the system. We pointed out the anomalies. The Minister, or his predecessor, said that he would look into the matter. This year we have the revised regulations with a uniform trigger point of minus 1·5 deg C.
I remember when the regulations were proposed. I was a member of a delegation from the Scottish parliamentary Labour group that went to see the Minister. We pointed out to him that the revised regulations were hardly any better than those in operation last winter. We told him in no uncertain terms that he was making a major blunder. He did not listen to us. He thought that the trigger point of minus 1·5 deg C would be a fair and uniform system that would operate throughout the United Kingdom and that it would get rid of many of the anomalies of the old system. We pointed out that the trigger point was far too low. In the light of the experience of the past few weeks, especially this week, even the Government have been forced to admit that they made a mistake in determining that trigger point.
Yesterday's announcement, although welcome, will not solve the problem. There were people suffering arctic conditions before this week in parts of Scotland. I, like many hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies, have been inundated with inquiries and complaints from constituents about this matter. The Minister should have a big shake-up in the bureaucracy of the DHSS. It is strange that an individual Member who bothers to do some private research can obtain information and come to a decision as to whether his area qualifies before the cumbersome bureaucracy of the DHSS eventually announces the decision officially.
Last week in Scotland only one weather station, Eskdalemuir, recorded sufficiently low temperatures during the week. Therefore, only people in the area covered by the Galashiels DHSS office qualified for the severe weather payment last week. On Monday of this week, because I could not get answers from the DHSS, I telephoned RAF Turnhouse, which is the weather station covering my area. I found out that last week the temperature dropped to as low as minus 7·6 deg C, on Thursday night. For five out of the seven days the daily average temperature was sub-zero.
The average of the total week is measured from Monday to Sunday inclusive, but because that average of daily averages was only minus 1·2 deg C, my constituents, and indeed the whole of east central Scotland, were disqualified from receiving the payment by less than half a deg C, by 0·3 of a deg C to be precise. The Minister should look at the anomalies that result from setting a trigger point as low as minus 1·5 deg C. He did not pluck that figure out of mid-air. It was based on historical statistics in order to minimise expenditure, and the events of the past week have proven that.
Even if the temperature condition is met, it is important to remind the general public of these facts, because many people are confused about this issue. Many pensioners think that they will be receiving £5 this week, but in fact only a relatively small number of people on supplementary benefit will receive the £5. Earlier in this debate somebody mentioned a total figure of less than 2 million people. Will the Minister confirm that? The recipient of supplementary benefit or supplementary pension has to be of pensionable age, or chronically sick or disabled, or have a dependent child under the age of two years.
Many other categories of needy people would benefit from a severe weather payment. Even if all the conditions are met, the amount cannot be described as over-generous by any stretch of the imagination. A mere pittance of £5 is hardly enough to buy a bag of coal. I submit that the system, although I welcome yesterday's statement, is grossly inadequate.
What is the alternative? Hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle), have spoken about alternatives. I have been campaigning on this issue for a number of years. Over the past four or five years I have each year introduced a ten-minute Bill called the People's Right to Fuel Bill. One of the purposes of the Bill was to stop electricity and gas domestic disconnections unless the board had a court order. I also tried to introduce under the terms of my Bill a comprehensive system of fuel allowances, not just for supplementary benefit recipients, but for people on housing benefit. It would be tied to housing benefit to obviate the need for yet another means test, while at the same time targeting the assistance to those who were most in need. The amount that I proposed was a minimum of £5 a week, but the exact amount would be determined in the same way as housing benefit is determined—by a scale rate depending on the income of the person or family, and the actual heating costs incurred.
We accept the principle of subsidy for a roof over someone's head. We ought to extend that principle and accept the logic of a subsidy for heating within that situation. A roof over someone's head in arctic conditions is not much good unless it is accompanied by adequate heating. Such a comprehensive system of fuel allowances would have to be backed up by a massive house insulation programme and the installation of efficient central heating systems. We have the disgraceful anomaly in this country of nearly half a million construction and allied workers on the dole queue when their skills and talents could be used to improve houses, to insulate houses, to put in efficient heating systems and so on.
Urgent action is required to eliminate fuel poverty from this country for ever. Many people must be wondering tonight whether they have almost to freeze to death before they will qualify for this special payment. There is a real risk of hypothermia for millions of people in this country. Age Concern estimates that a hundred old people die every day because of the cold. There are many others who are suffering and running the real risk of hypothermia, and there are many people tonight who are having to make a choice between heating and eating, because they cannot afford both. It is a national scandal. The House has a responsibility to do something about it, and yesterday's announcement, although welcome, is not nearly enough.

Mr. David Maclean: The hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) said that this £5 allowance would scarcely buy a bag of coal for some old people. If the £5 allowance was the only help that they had for their heating costs, he would be absolutely right in declaring it scandalous and thoroughly inadequate. Accidentally, he may have given the impression to the House that this is the only payment that we make and I am sure that he would not want that impression to remain. We maintain the normal heating allowance for those people who qualify through the supplementary benefit system in the first tier, and through the additional heating allowances in the second tier. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) has pointed out, this exceptionally cold-weather payment is the additional icing on the cake.

Dr. Godman: Icing on the cake. That is an unfortunate remark.

Mr. Canavan: Will the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) remind the House that the amount of additional heating benefit for people on supplementary benefit is £2·20 at the lower rate and £5·55 at the higher rate? As I understand it, that will be phased out by April 1988.

Mr. Maclean: The Opposition have chosen this subject for debate today because of the current problem with the extreme weather that we face in this country. They say that the heating allowances currently available are inadequate and that this special allowance is not right. There is a range of heating allowances available, through the supplementary benefit system and the additional heating allowances—in some cases up to £11 a week. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar has pointed out, these are paid automatically as of right for 52 weeks a year, and they are being paid at this very moment. The £5 allowance that my hon. Friend the Minister quite rightly said yesterday would be triggered this week and would be paid to those on supplementary benefit is an additional allowance on top of the first and second tiers.
I know that the hon. Member for Falkirk, West will be quite happy for those facts to be made available to the House, although he did not mention them in his speech. I will not give the same benefit of the doubt to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), who, on the radio today and in his statements of the past few days, has been quite disgraceful in seeking to create the impression that the only help available for the old and cold in this country is the £5 allowance. Of course there are anomalies in the system. Whenever there is a trigger point there are anomalies, whether the temperature is set at minus 15 deg C, minus 1·5 deg C or plus 15 deg C. Wherever one draws the line there will be people who fall on one side of it or the other.
We must never forget that this system is designed to cope with the extraordinary cases. When it is warmer than 1·5 deg C, cases are already dealt with by the normal heating allowances. The normal heating allowances are paid through the existing two tiers in the supplementary benefit system. We reserve this system for those exceptional cases.
It is interesting that the hon. Member for Oldham, West said that he would cut through the bureacracy. We have


rightly cut through the bureacracy of this new system. The hon. Member for Oldham, West will not have bureacracy surrounding it in future because he is promising to give more money to all and sundry. The previous Labour Government had no bureacracy surrounding the system because they did not give any exceptionally cold weather payments to anyone. As they did not have the system, there was no bureaucracy surrounding it.

Mrs. Beckett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Maclean: No. I have a few more points to make in only a short time.

Mrs. Beckett: What the hon. Gentleman says is not true.

Mr. Maclean: It is inevitable that bureaucracy exists in a trigger system such as this. The hon. Member for Oldham, West made his promises, but he avoided saying whether his right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) has approved those promises. Indeed, his right hon. Friend has already warned him to stop making crazy promises that he cannot fulfil. Of course, he will be politically shrewd enough not to give him a ticking off this week, but next week, when the Opposition continue their bogus and synthetic campaign about the state of British industry, no doubt the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook will have a word with his hon. Friend and tell him to stop making vain promises to which the Labour party does not wish to be committed because the electorate can see through them.
I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) is not in the Chamber. He has been present throughout a large part of the debate. I want to comment on something that he said. He asked why we are not providing free coal for pensioners. It is interesting that he should advocate such a policy when a couple of years ago he supported a miners' strike which drastically reduced the amount of coal available in Britain.
No one challenges the charity of individual miners who helped to get coal supplies and solid fuel through to old folks' homes during the strike, but we do challenge the attitude of Labour politicians and union members who attempted to close down the power stations before Christmas. I remember Arthur Scargill saying, "Don't worry, chaps. Stick with us. We will get the power stations closed before Christmas when the bad weather comes." Conservative Members will not take advice from Labour Members who tell us to be more charitable or to have a conscience when they supported that sort of policy.
I should have liked to hear from the right hon. Gentleman, had he allowed me to intervene in his speech, how much electricity would be available at present if his anti-nuclear policy went through. We already know that the Central Electricity Generating Board is stretched to the maximum.

Mr. Frank Cook: That is not so.

Mr. Maclean: If the Labour party's policy of closing nuclear power stations in Britain went ahead, not only would we have a shortage of electricity, but electricity prices would go through the roof, as they have done in the past under Labour Governments.
I conclude as I started. The additional payment for severe weather is paid in exceptional circumstances. The

Labour party wants to perpetuate the myth that it will pay it to everybody in all cases and at all times. It wants it to become the norm. We know that when it had the opportunity to do that it failed to do so. We also know that the £28 billion that the Labour party will splash around on public expenditure—begged, borrowed or taken from us in taxation—will mean that it does not have the resources to do that.
In the past two years the Government have brought in the extra payment, which is the third tier on top of the first tier of supplementary benefit, which we have increased, and on top of the second tier of additional heating allowances, which we have also increased. That is a good record of which no Conservative Member is ashamed and which the public appreciates.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I am the only Member from Wales taking part in the debate, and we have particular problems in Wales. A study published last year showed that the proportion of the household income that went on heating costs was 7·3 per cent. in Wales—higher than in Scotland or in England, or, indeed, in any region in England. That is a reflection of the weather, low incomes, unemployment and poor housing in many parts of Wales. Therefore, we have a severe problem.
Members on both sides of the House have addressed themselves to the problem, but a solution has not yet become apparent. It is clear that the present policy has, before it has been implemented, shown itself to be deficient. It has already been overridden before it has come into effect. It would be appropriate for the Minister, when he replies, to say what will happen to the minus 1·5 deg C system. Clearly, it is not practical. One almost felt sorry for the Minister on "Newsnight" the other night having to defend such an impossible case.
We need a system that is flexible enough to meet people's needs from area to area, but which does not have the problem of discretion, which we saw was such a great difficulty for managers of DHSS offices during the previous winter's hard weather. I am attracted by the suggestion that has just been made by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) of a bonus system. There should be some sort of a bonus payment. A payment made regularly every week, six months of the year, can become psychologically subsumed as normal income. Pensioners expect it to be there to live on.
That is the problem with the existing heating elements allowance in the supplementary benefit and supplementary pensions, to which many hon. Members have referred. It tends to be assumed to be part of the normal income, so it is not available as an extra element when it is really needed. A bonus of perhaps £10 for a limited number of weeks, whether alternate weeks or every week during cold weather, is very attractive because of the certainty that it will be available when it is needed.
It is not just those on supplementary pension and benefit who need such a payment. There are people on ordinary pensions, just below supplementary pension level, who are hit equally hard by the cold weather that we have been having. There are people on low incomes or family income supplement who are in an equally difficult position.
I have been asked to present one set of cases to the House tonight by Mencap. Mencap has been conducting a study in Manchester on profoundly mentally


handicapped people which has been going on for some time now. It shows that for mentally handicapped people—usually children or young people—who are living at home with their parents in the community, the single most severe problem for those families, virtually all of which are in receipt of attendance allowance, is heating costs. In the survey, 79 per cent. of those families put heating costs as the most difficult problem that they are facing. Yet only 20 per cent. or so of those families, are in receipt of supplementary benefit. That means that only one out of every four of the families who have identified heating costs as their greatest difficulty will be helped by the provisions that the Government have brought forward. The position of those on attendance allowance but not on supplementary benefit—not only those with mental handicap but disabled people also—needs to be rethought.
There is also the unfairness of the £500 capital rule. In my part of the world old people regard it as a matter of dignity that they should save enough money to pay for their funeral, and if a husband and wife are saving up for their funerals they will be over the £500 mark immediately and it is wrong that such people should be debarred and penalised for their upstanding attitude.
Finally, let me deal with the anomaly in the measurement of temperatures. My constituency falls into two halves, one of which, in Snowdonia, is covered by the RAF Valley base on Anglesey. The temperature in places like Deiniolen, Dinorwig and Llanberis up in the mountains of Snowdonia can be much colder than in RAF Valley on the island. In the southern part, the Trawsfynydd power station warms the lake so much that there is sub-tropical life in it. That is the point where the temperature is being taken for the southern part of my constituency, the Dwyfor area, and, indeed, for Blaenau Ffestiniog, up in the mountains. That is clearly ridiculous.
We need a reliable system so that people know that the money is coming as soon as it gets cold, so that they do not have to hold out in freezing circumstances. There needs to be certainty and regionality and a broad enough net to take in all those in need. That is not the case at the moment and we certainly need to rethink.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I understand that the first Front-Bench spokesman will seek to catch my eye at about 9.30 pm. Five hon. Members have been sitting here for a long time seeking to catch my eye. If they do their arithmetic, we might get them all in.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: I note your remarks, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I know that the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) will not object if I do not take up his comments. I am well aware that the House regards the hon. Gentleman highly and that what he has said will be carefully noted by my hon. Friend the Minister, not only when he replies but in further deliberations on this sensitive and difficult issue. Instead, I want to devote my comments to three separate points which have arisen during the debate and require further consideration.
I was saddened and surprised that Opposition Members should be so derisory when my hon. Friend the Minister referred to the fact that it is desperately important in this cold winter to ensure that neighbours, friends and relatives look after elderly people. It is all too

easy for people, any time a crisis occurs, to ask, "What are the Government going to do?" I believe that charity should start at home.
In most cases elderly people have children and grandchildren who live not very far from them—[Interruption.] I said in most cases. I think that it is important that we should generate greater family responsibility for elderly people.

Dr. Godman: rose—

Mr. MacKay: No, I shall not give way, as other hon. Members wish to speak. I believe that we should encourage families to take on a greater responsibility for their relatives.
In my constituency, and I am sure in many others, people in the neighbourhood wish to play a greater part in caring for the elderly. That should be encouraged. At this difficult time relatives and neighbours should keep an eye on old people to ensure that they are adequately looked after.
With hindsight, Labour Members—most of whom I know are very concerned—will realise that their laughter and derisory remarks about the Minister's suggestion of increased community help was unfortunate, insensitive and misguided. Perhaps their remarks were made in the heat of the debate, and in the cold light of day they will regret them.
It is not sufficient to make sure that the elderly are looked after. I suspect that that is what the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) is seeking to say.

Dr. Godman: Give way.

Mr. MacKay: I will not give way.

Dr. Godman: Then stop interpreting my thoughts.

Mr. MacKay: It is not sufficient for neighbours and families to keep an eye on old people. Many old people worry about paying the bills. The hon. Member for Caernarfon rightly pointed out that there are many who have modest savings to pay for their funerals. My hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) also pointed out that there are many people who were brought up to pay their bills promptly. They become desperately concerned if they get into debt. They would endure pain, suffering, or worse, to avoid such debt. That is why it was desperately important that the Government should make it clear that it is right that all old people should maintain adequate heating at this cold time.
I believe that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) has done a great disservice for cheap political gain by some of his broadcasts, in which he has suggested that old people would be foolish to heat their homes adequately as their bills would then be difficult to meet.
Labour Members behaved in a despicable manner and not in the interests of old people when they laughed at the Minister's remarks concerning the exceptionally mild December that we had. That mild weather means that the heating bills for that period will be relatively small and will go some way to offset the larger heating bills that we will all face for January. That is simple economics. The laughter and dismissive remarks of some Labour Members prove that they are not interested in old people. The Labour party is looking at the opinion polls and it is aware that it will lose at the next general election. It is clutching


at straws to try to salvage—[Interruption.] The electorate will not look favourably at a political party and some Opposition Members—thankfully, not all—who have tried to use this exceptionally cold winter and the concern for elderly people to political advantage. That will do the Labour party a great deal of harm when it comes to the next election.
Unfortunately, I fell out with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when I tried to intervene in the speech of the hon. Member for Oldham, West. I apologise if I caused you any embarrassment. I was trying, as was the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins), to ask the hon. Member for Oldham, West, who is the official shadow Cabinet spokesman on health and social security, how a future Labour Government would pay for the extra heating allowances that he was proposing.
We are aware that there has been a meeting at Bishops Stortford and that the Labour party proposes to spend £3·6 billion on a poverty programme which is to be financed from a total of £28 billion of extra public expenditure. Independent commentators are anxious to know how that money will be found. We want to know whether the extra money for the heating allowance, as proposed by the Labour party, will come out of the £3·6 billion. We have a right to know, and I am sure that the electorate would also like to know. It is irresponsible of the Opposition to promise extra money if they do not know how they will raise that money. The Opposition have an obligation not to make such promises.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Oldham, West would have explained this if I had successfully intervened. The hon. Gentleman would not wish to deceive the House, nor the electorate. The hon. Gentleman would have explained whether the extra money for the heating allowance would eat into the £3·6 billion poverty programme or whether—as I suspect—such expenditure would be additional to that programme. I hope that when the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) sums up for the Opposition, she will explain to us where that money will come from.
There has been considerable hypocrisy in some of the speeches made inside and outside the House. There was a clear impression that in the periods of the Labour Administration—1964–70 and 1974–79—there had been no cold winters and no tragedies when old people had died. It was claimed that the Labour Government had made special provision. That is not true—[Interruption.] I believe that the electorate will judge the Labour party's record, not its promises.
Under the Labour Government, electricity and gas prices went up because of massive inflation. It is very easy to say that discounts were provided, but those discounts were provided on the massively increased prices of electricity and gas. It was all funny money.
At the end of the debate some of the more thoughtful Opposition Members—many of whom are not in the Chamber at the moment—will be thoroughly ashamed of the way in which the Labour Opposition—I stress Labour Opposition, as we have had a more responsible approach from the Alliance and from the hon. Member for Caernarfon—have tried to exploit this difficult situation.

Mr. Tom Clarke: It is a great pity that the hon. Member for Berkshire, East, (Mr. MacKay) seemed to want to join in a competition in frivolity among Conservative Members, as that is quite inappropriate to the very serious situation facing many people today. Conservative Members have almost totally failed to respond to the severity of it. They would like us to believe that everything in the garden is lovely—[Interruption.] I did not interrupt the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) even though he made an even more frivolous speech than the hon. Member for Berkshire, East.
The fundamental question to be asked is why people are dying from the cold and what the Government are going to do about it. I have facts that cannot be challenged and that are not being given the necessary consideration because of the frivolity of Conservative Members. In 1986, 1,060 people died of hypothermia, and that does not include deaths related to cold. In March, 1986, 16,000 people died as a result of cold-related illnesses. Are we to pretend that that is not happening, or that because of party political considerations, which mean that some people have their eyes on the next election instead of on the problems facing folks today, we should stay sitting here gagged, saying nothing? Are we being asked not to agree with what the hon. Member for Caenarfon (Mr. Wigley) said in his splendid speech? He understands these matters and the feelings of ordinary people who have to face the day-to-day realities.
Is that number of deaths necessary, given that we live in a rich country that has plenty of resources? The facts available on other countries suggest that the answer is no. In February 1986 in Sweden and France 6 per cent. more elderly people died than the average for the year. The figure for the United States was 8 per cent. and for Scotland, 19 per cent. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Nottingham, South should find that funny, because it is a serious problem that must be addressed. We are debating the fact that the Government's policy does not respond to the problems that exist but reflects, rather, the Treasury's cash limits.
For several years now we have debated the problem of fuel poverty. Every year the Government say that they will deal with it. Ministers appear on television programmes giving all sorts of assurances, yet we are now holding a similar debate to the one held last year. People throughout the country are challenging the Government's policy. Even some of the sychophantic newspapers that support the Government on almost all their decisions challenge their attitude on this issue.
The newspapers challenge the Government's thinking on the trigger point. Where does the minus 1·5 deg C come from? It is a totally arbitrary measurement. Newspapers have challenged, just as we have, the stipulation that that level must be averaged from Monday to Sunday. Indeed, that outrageous stipulation has been manipulated to the disadvantage of those whom we seek to help. Above all, they challenge the Government's intentions about reading stations. For example, Aviemore has registered a teperature of minus 17 deg C, but that is not taken into account in the readings for that region. We are told that it is sometimes colder in Aviemore than at the North pole. How does Government policy take that into account?

Mr. Ernie Ross: My hon. Friend has spoken about Aviemore and the frivolity of Conservative Members, but has there not also been some hypocrisy on the part of Opposition Members? For example, the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) has been a Member of Parliament since 1974, yet it took him until 1982 to discover that there were different climatic zones in Scotland. We were raising the issue much earlier than that.

Mr. Clarke: I am sure that the House will have noted that point. My hon. Friend has certainly gone on the record on that issue.
The problem of fuel poverty is reflected in the fact that 6 per cent. of household expenditure in the United Kingdom relates to necessary fuel charges, while the figure for Scotland is 7 per cent. and for all the elderly in the United Kingdom, 9 per cent. There is no way that any DHSS arrangements take that into account. Moreover, there is no way that the problems of the elderly can be recognised if the Government insist that people with capital of £500 or more should be excluded.
It astonishes me that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) has mentioned, only Eskdalemuir should qualify because of the method of taking into account recorded temperatures. I am pleased that Eskdalemuir at least qualified. Last week it exceeded the magic figure for four days out of seven. However, the same was also true of the Glasgow area, including my constituency. In the Edinburgh district the Government's magic figure was exceeded for five days out of seven, but that area was not entitled to claim the allowance. How can the Government regard that as a reasonable approach to such wintry conditions?
Moreover, people in many parts of the country live in great poverty. A few weeks ago I asked the Prime Minister a question and the reply confirmed that the top 10 per cent. of earners had increased their wealth since 1979, while the bottom 10 per cent. had become poorer. Given that, it is not easy to respond to the problems of fuel poverty. Yesterday morning I heard BBC radio giving warnings to motorists and pedestrians. That was only right. However, we should always be prepared to give warnings to the elderly about drops in temperature and wintry conditions, and we should not simply depend on the voluntary organisations.
There are many voluntary organisations, and they all do an excellent job. They would not for a second tell the Government to stand on one side and to pursue their present policies. I have listened carefully to every hon. Member who has spoken and have tried to contrast their speeches with some of the representations made to me and no doubt to other hon. Members recently. Yesterday I had a discussion in my own home with an elderly retired man called Eddie. For 20 years he had been a caretaker, looking after people in a 14-storey block of flats. He sat and wept. He did not make cheap political points but, rather, demonstrated the reality of the situation. I would be failing in my duty if I did not reflect that in the House tonight.
When Ministers and Government supporters say to the House and the country, "Where will we get the money?", I say, on behalf of Eddie and millions of others, that the money is there if the will is there. If the position that exists in my constituency were reflected in the Falklands, the Treasury would be told to find the money, and that is what the House is telling the Government to do tonight.

Mr. Roger Gale: I declare an interest as 30 per cent. of my constituents are over retirement age and, undoubtedly, some of them are old and cold. I have another interest. I represent the Hebridean Isle of Thanet which this week, last year and the year before suffered some extreme weather conditions. On Monday I drove through a blizzard to get here and tomorrow I shall return home. During my absence my office has been manned 24 hours a day by my staff seeking to help those who suffer from the cold. In case that sounds grand, I happen to be married to my staff.
The constituents of Thanet will not be especially impressed by the political opportunism of this debate. They will recognise, as we recognise, that a couple of days ago the Leader of the Opposition said, "Okay, boyos, it is snowing, so let us do snow and cold this week and then we can do economic disaster next week or the week after that." His disgraceful performance this afternoon was manifest of that sentiment.
The alliance can take little comfort from its position. After all, it was those disunited parties that kept the last Labour Government in office and doing nothing. I have checked the records and there are no proud speeches, nor one word from the Liberals or the Members of the Social Democratic party, who were then members of the Labour party, on this subject.
Today we have heard of the three levels of heating assistance that the Government have introduced.

Dr. Godman: The additional heating allowances have been called the icing on the cake.

Mr. Gale: Would the hon. Gentleman like to rise to his feet to speak?

Dr. Godman: I said that the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) called the third tier "the icing on the cake". That was an especially unfortunate remark given the fact that in my constituency there are many thousands of elderly people who desperately require help. Under the discredited scheme that has been thrown out, 3,000 payments were made for the exceptionally severe weather of last February. My research showed me that that represented about one in five of those who should have received that payment.

Mr. Gale: I am sorry that I gave way. I thought that the hon. Gentleman sought to intervene in my speech. We can probably all agree that the only icing on the cake of England at present is several inches of snow, and it is the effects of that that we are here to discuss. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to make a speech later.
This afternoon and this evening we heard that the Government have introduced three levels of heating assistance. I do not believe, and I do not know any Conservative Member who believes, that that is any cause for complacency, that we have done enough, that there is no more that needs to be done or that there are not at this moment elderly people who are suffering from the cold. Since 1962, year on year, the incidence of death from hypothermia has fallen except in one year. It may be a coincidence that that happens to be the year in which the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) was in office. The fact that the incidence of hypothermia is falling is also no cause for satisfaction, if the level is still too high, as indeed it is.
Today the House has not discussed providing help where it is needed. Earlier this afternoon, during the debate on the television licence, we heard a classic case of the Opposition saying that they wanted to give a television licence free to every pensioner, irrespective of need. Clearly many people and many pensioners would welcome that. I do not doubt that those who can afford to pay their licence fee would welcome that, but by no means all those people are in need, and to use valuable resources where they are not most needed is simply a waste.
I said that 30 per cent. of my constituents were over retirement age, and so they are. Many of them are old, cold and living in their own homes in which they have invested a vast quantity of capital. In other circumstances, for example if the money were released, they could well afford to pay their way and to pay for insulation, central heating and the comfort that they deserve. Sadly, they are often widows who have been bereaved earlier than expected, living in under-occupied properties which are too big and expensive to heat and maintain.
Another section of the elderly population in my constituency are extremely comfortable. They are not rich. Some are well off and some have not a bean to their name. They live in sheltered or warden-assisted accommodation which is well heated and lighted and they are well fed and cared for. They have a cord to pull if they find themselves in trouble.
If we are to address ourselves seriously to the problem and the needs of the elderly, and not to make cheap political capital because there happens to be some snow on the ground, we must build more warden-assisted housing to provide for the ever-increasing elderly population. With respect to my hon. Friend the Minister, it is the Secretary of State for the Environment who needs to address himself to that as much as the Department of Health and Social Security.
Some Opposition Members will immediately say, "Yes, if the Government allowed us to use more receipts from housing sales, we could do just that"; but we know that that is borrowed money. We also know that there is under-occupied property, not only in the private sector, but in the public sector. Tonight we have also heard about the needs of the young. It has been suggested that far too many young people are homeless, particularly in London, and I concur with that, but it is also a fact that there is too much under-occupied private and public sector property. That results partly from bad local government and management—the vast number of housing voids is a disgrace—and partly from the Rent Acts which have taken a great deal of property out of the housing market.
If we are to address ourselves to this problem seriously and in the long term, we should look, not at five quid here or there, or say, "We have done a bit more than you," or, "You say you will do a bit more than us." We should consider the housing available and ensure that every room is being used to best advantage. I freely accept that the responsibility for under-occupied property and for the lack of warden-assisted property lies equally with both sides of the House. If we address ourselves to that, irrespective of who is in power next winter and during subsequent winters, we may not have this argument. If not, we know perfectly well that whoever sits on the Opposition benches will say, "There is snow on the ground; the Government should do more."
The Government have a good record on assistance, but that does not mean that more does not need to be done. I said that I would be brief, but, coming from Kent, it would be wrong to sit down without paying tribute to the armed services which have given so much help in the past few days and are continuing to do so. In particular, I mention the Gurkha regiment which has brought the Isle of Sheppey back to the mainland, as it were, fighting their way through the snow to deliver supplies.
It would be wrong not to pay tribute to the many people who have been getting food through, not only to the elderly in need but to young families in need and to village shops which are running out of food. It would be wrong not to pay tribute to the county council, especially to its employees who have been driving the snow ploughs and keeping the roads open.
Finally, it would be wrong if we did not recognise, as our constituents will recognise, the considerable contribution made yesterday and today by my hon. Friend the Minister, who has done so much in this crisis.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Pensioners have an enormous number of problems in severe weather because many of their houses or flats are defective and their roofs leak. They also have problems because they cannot get out and they cannot get food in. The worst problem, and the one that rightly has prompted the debate today, is that severe cold leads to ill health, and for many pensioners that means death.
As the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) intimated in his splendid speech, every winter about 90,000 people die from cold. In the last full year for which figures are available, over 1,000 people, most of them old people, died from hypothermia. Some 86 per cent. of them were over 65, and 70 per cent. were over 75. In the first quarter of last year there were 578 hypothermia-related deaths. That is not surprising if we consider the background figures. They show that 46 per cent. of those over 60 and living alone have no central heating, and, also according to the 1983 general household survey, 41 per cent. of couples over 60 have no central heating.
Additionally, the surveys carried out by the DHSS in the last decade accept that the temperature for the elderly should be 70 deg C, but that the vast majority of elderly people's living rooms have temperatures of about 10 deg C less than that. Against all those problems, the DHSS proposes that, in 14 months time, the extra heating allowance provision be removed for up to 2·5 million people and that insulation grants should be phased out.
The severe weather payments issue has been raised regularly in the House. It is sad that this winter we had to wait until yesterday for another Government U-turn. Clearly, they want to be popular with the electors. The autumn statement, the rate support grant which helps the Tory shires, and now the extra £5 a week given at the last moment demonstrate that fact. We do not mind the Government being nice. We are happy that they are generous, but being generous so late in the day does not smack of a commitment to make sure that people do not suffer when it gets cold. I hope that people will remember that, for years they were frozen out of their entitlements and only given a one-week handout when, suddenly, the pressure was put on.
As the hon. Members for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer) and for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) and others have said, there has been a long history of debates like this. They are annual events. It is not appropriate that party political points should childishly be made across the Chamber. A perfectly valid question was put to the Minister by the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock), the leader of the Labour party, and the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees): if old people felt that were they to put on their heating they would not have their bills met, could they be guaranteed by the Government that their bills would be met when presented? I regret that the response to that question by the Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security was total silence.
On the radio this morning, the chairman of one of the electricity authorities said that the authority would be compassionate with old people when bills were presented. Many old people need not just compassion but the knowledge that they will not be without the resources to pay if they have to keep up the heat to keep themselves warm.
We had a bad winter last year and the old scheme went back to the Government but, sadly, they have not produced a well-laid plan of action this year. Winter comes every year and some winters are worse than others. This may be the worst winter for many years. Last year, my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) said that, unless the Government had a plan that was geared to work when the weather became bad early, we would inevitably have an emergency response to the crisis with additional deaths. The tragedy is that this year the Government have been caught out early in the life of the new scheme by their own innate meanness.
The scheme was contrived to spend as little money as possible and to choose a temperature that was not logical. A logical temperature must be 0 deg C, the temperature at which things freeze. The logical measuring points must reflect geographical diversity. My colleagues from Wales and Scotland have made the self-evident point that measuring stations by the coast clearly do not take into account enormous differences of temperature inland. The worst thing of all is the profoundly unsatisfactory nature of the approach to the system. One should ask what old people need, should try to meet it and then should be determined to meet it.
Although we may be willing to save fuel by telling people in offices and young people in their homes to turn down their heat, we should not be willing to tell old people to turn down their heat. That is because they are the most vulnerable people in our society and cold is clearly often the worst and most obvious cause of death.
I hope that we will hear the immediate announcement of a system where the trigger is 0 deg C and which will run on a basis of at least any seven days rolling together so that people will realise that if there is a run of a few cold days it is likely that they will be entitled to benefit. The categories need to be expanded to more than the few penny-pinching categories that we have at the moment. I should like to know why we cannot have an automatic triggering of the system. Why do people have to put in forms to get the benefit? It could be given to them automatically. The DHSS keeps records, so such a system is not impossible.
Why cannot we have the adoption of the scheme that my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire suggested last year? The winter months from December to March are the months when people should have a bonus. If we examine the ideas from Members in all part of the House, we see that those are the 13 weeks of the year when people should have a bonus. If we had the unusual circumstance of winter extending beyond the end of March, we could look at it again. Under such a scheme, at least people would have certainty—old people need the certainty—of knowing that they will have money to pay the bills.
We ask the Government to think again about their plan to phase out insulation grants and, next year, to phase out heating payments. Home insulation is the long-term sensible solution, and must be an intermediate step before we change the whole tax and social security system to be fairer to those at the bottom of the heap. As some hon. Members have said, it is quite disgraceful that in a civilised and rich country in 1987 we should condemn more of our fellow citizens to die of the cold than die in any neighbouring country in Europe.
The Minister of State said that he would use the media to advertise tomorrow or on Friday in newspapers and on the radio information and advice. I hope that we can have additional advice telling people how to keep warm and avoid illness or accident. Help the Aged and other agencies are as concerned about those who do not telephone as about those who do. We must start a health education exercise, but there is no point in starting it on 7 January or 1 March. We should have it in advance so that people can have a system into which they can plug their right to benefits.
If the Government spent one tenth of what they spent on advertising British Gas shares advertising to meet the needs of the elderly, we might be making some progress towards a civilised society. Repeatedly, we are not prepared and pressure has to be exerted. My right hon. Friend the leader of the Liberal party had to write to the Minister of State on Monday morning to ask him to introduce the additional bonus which arrived a day later.
I ask the Government to consider what I hope are a few helpful and certainly urgent proposals. Why can we not have a national plan, a "cold aid" plan—call it what we will—so that local authorities, Government and voluntary bodies are brought together in advance to act and build on the experience of voluntary agencies?
All local authorities could have a well known "white line" telephone number for emergency help and advice. Advance advertisements everywhere could advise how to "stop the cold from killing". Additional staff could be recruited by the statutory agencies so that people do not have to wait a long time for electricity, gas and water repairs. There should be encouragement of neighbourhood watch schemes especially for pensioners, and people should be encouraged to give extra volunteer help to such organisations as Age Concern.
The Government should appoint somebody in advance to be in charge of Government policy with a statutory duty to co-ordinate ministerial initiatives. Local authorities should be encouraged to have a sort of "white alert" like Adur district council, where there is a scheme initiated by my colleagues which says to people, "If you put in £1 to help give old people a fuel bonus, we in the local authority


will match it." My colleagues are to be complimented on that scheme. The week of action suggested by voluntary bodies for cold homes should also be accepted.
As we also suggest, there should be a change in the rules to abolish standing charges for fuel. That charge is a great iniquity and Britain could well afford to do without it. Fundamentally and finally, we must increase the pension.
We may be greatly worried about the young and others who are vulnerable, but tonight we are discussing pensioners. This is a test of public generosity, not just of cash but of spirit. Enormous tax handouts to the rich sound pretty hollow to that much larger group in our community who have to prise £5 out of the Government's hands at the very last moment, and only for one week. Ministers should return to the Elephant and Castle and persuade their colleagues that the age of Dickens, when the old had to come with a begging bowl, asking for more, should have long gone. It is their responsibility to ensure that it never returns.

Mr. Frank Cook: I have been an associate member of Teesside Pensioners' Association for the past 14 years and must therefore declare a vested interest in today's debate. Membership of that association means that I am qualified to speak with a little authority and with direct knowledge of the pensioners' outlook on these matters. If all hon. Members had the welfare of senior citizens at heart and a vested interest on a similar scale, today's debate would have been unnecessary. The only speech from the Government Benches that I commend is that of the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle).
Ministers will recall that I took part in the debate on the proposed annulment of the regulations on 18 December 1986, when I referred to the omission of the Stockton district DHSS offices from the list of areas and their associated designated national climatological message stations. I explained in painstaking detail how application of section 4(b) of new regulation 26A would result in
close neighbours in the same geophysical location suffering similar socio-economic deprivation being subject to evaluation on statistics that are quite different.
I explained that such a practice could give rise to a constituent in the north of my constituency being assessed on the same basis as somebody in Humberside, while his fellow elector on the south side of the same Stockton street would be subject to the data that apply to claimants in Castle Morpeth in Northumberland, 140 miles away. I said that it was sheer madness, and sheer madness it will remain if such stupid regulations remain in force.
On that occasion the junior Minister said:
I shall refer later and briefly to the comments made by the hon. Member."—[Official Report, 18 December 1986; Vol. 89, c. 1385–89]
Later and briefly it proved to be, right enough. No reference has been made to it from that day to this. I suppose that that is as late and as brief as one can be. I trust that today the Minister will not be guilty of the same oversight. However, we shall see. He has a second chance.
During the same debate I goaded the Minister by referring to the period of seven days beginning on a Monday and ending on the following Sunday. I pointed out that one does not have to be a great mathematician to

realise that the definition could refer to an exceptionally cold weather period lasting for 19 days and that effectively it is a way of denying a week's payment to any pensioner who may qualify for it. It could prove to be a mechanism to deprive the elderly of payment for 12 days of suffering in sub-zero temperatures—all for a miserable, penny-pinching £8·57.
The Minister indicated dissent to such an extent on that occasion that I offered him the opportunity to deal with the point. He declined to do so, much to my disappointment and his colleagues' relief. He made no reference to this matter on that occasion. I hope that he will cover the point today. When he does so, perhaps he will bear in mind that the two weather stations covering Cleveland are at the Whitby coastguard and at Leeming. Last week they recorded average temperatures which at Leeming were 0 deg C and at Whitby 0·3 deg C. However, the average for Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday at Leeming was minus 2·5 deg C and at Whitby minus 2·25 deg C. Thus, if the period runs from Monday to Sunday, it means no help for last week, in spite of the very low temperatures in the last four days of that week.
The announcement yesterday, far from being a gesture of generosity of the Snow Queen, as some of the sycophantic "Torientated" media have described it, was no more than the reinstatement of four days of suffering that would have been filched from our senior citizens by these regulations which the Minister claims, in his own words, were so carefully and skilfully structured. The regulations are a farce. If they were in any way adequate, yesterday's statement would have been unnecessary. In fact, yesterday's announcement, much vaunted by the Prime Minister, was no more than an admission of failure to provide adequately, and the right hon. Lady should admit that.
Notwithstanding facts and figures and well placed guilt, the plain truth is that many people cannot afford to keep themselves sufficiently warm. The sum of £5 a week is clearly insufficient. The Cleveland "elderly at home" team reported to me that some of their clients who have inefficient heating systems have had to use up to four bags of smokeless fuel a week at £7 a bag—this means £28 a week during severe weather. Even with the weekly heating addition which we have heard so much about tonight of £2·20, and the severe weather payment of £5, the single pensioner has to find over £20 a week out of a weekly supplementary pension of £37·90 if he or she is to heat himself or herself adequately. How many Government Members could afford to spend 53 per cent. of their normal weekly income on fuel?
At this point perhaps a comparison with previous circumstances may prove enlightening, for under the old rules anyone receiving supplementary benefit could qualify for a severe weather payment. Under the new rules, only pensioners, children under two and the chronically sick and disabled are entitled to the payment. What about the others? What, for instance, about families with three-year-old to four-year-old children? We have been asked for facts today. Perhaps the House will bear this fact in mind. The highest percentage rise in winter male deaths, as opposed to summer male deaths, occurs in the age range of one to four years. In fact, the 1980 figure indicates that the increase in winter over summer is 151 per cent. So if the children aged nought to five qualify for the age-related


weekly heating additions, what justification is there for excluding the two-year-olds to five-year-olds from the severe weather payments?
I shall listen most carefully for the ministerial response to that question. I shall listen as carefully as I did on Monday last when the Minister said that his Department had deliberately taken the usual budget element allocated for the purpose of severe weather payments and devised a structure of regulations that would disperse the same amount of money more fairly to those who needed such help throughout the country. It is clear that the choice of that approach, coupled with the choice of trigger temperature, was designed not to help the pensioners withstand the cold in their shivering misery, but simply to minimise expenditure and maximise the facade of the Government's pretence at compassion, a form of mendacity which was quite malicious and mischievous in its intent.
If the Government had wanted to be as generous as the Prime Minister now protests, they could have taken a leaf from the pensions book of our tiny neighbour, Guernsey, which was quoted by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson)—although he got his facts reversed—where a weekly amount of £12 is paid throughout the winter period in a manner similar to that proposed by Labour Members tonight. In fact, this Channel Island tax haven. this bolt-hole for Brits who seek to avoid or minimise their financial contribution to collective care and concern, has, despite a gulf stream climate measurably more clement than our own, announced yesterday a further weekly payment of £6 for the duration of the present severe weather. Perhaps the Minister will tell us tonight how generous the Snow Queen is now in comparison with our Channel Island neighbour.
Perhaps I may make a point about the comments of the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) on nuclear power, to show how specious his contribution was. The reactor at Dungeness B was down this Monday and the reactors at Sizewell, Heysham and Trawsfynydd are now out of commission. According to the Central Electricity Generating Board today, it is because they are undergoing annual maintenance. This is the first time that, as an engineer associated with power stations, I have known of annual outages in January. Incidentally, the Isle of Grain, Ince and Littlebrook power stations produce between them 4,000 MW of oil-fired power which has not been used since the miners' strike. The hon. Gentleman made a specious point and I hope that the House noted that.
The regulations are nothing more than an elaborate attempt at a pathetically opaque confidence trick. Again the Government have ensnared themselves in a web of their own deception and misinformation. The Minister knows it, we know it, and the electorate know it, and they will record that knowledge appropriately when they get the chance to boot this regime out at the next general election.

Mr. George Howarth: I am bound to say, as a relatively new Member, that I have been amazed to hear Conservative Members pour scorn and vitriol on the Labour party, quote the actions of the last Labour Government and, in one case, even quote from Tribune. The Government must face the fact that we have rebutted every accusation with facts, and that they have

been in power for seven long years. They cannot continue to evade their responsibilities by throwing vitriol and abuse at the Labour party.
This month, in 1987, some elderly people are living their lives entirely in one room, wrapped up in blankets and several layers of clothing because they cannot afford the cost of heating their whole house. That has been happening not just during this week, but during other weeks too. The Government must accept their responsibility. They have failed to maintain the level of pensions and to provide adequate heating help.
Even before this current spell of cold weather, it was impossible for many families on low incomes to pay for the energy needed to heat their homes. I hope that, once the debate dies down and the Minister thinks about this matter, note will be taken of the points made by Labour Members and, in certain cases, Conservative Back Benchers.
In the short term, during this cold spell, we need more than yesterday's statement, which we all accept. I hope that the measures announced will be extended, irrespective of the precise measurement of the temperature during the next few weeks, until the cold spell ends. I hope that the Government will seriously consider dropping the £500 savings limit. As hon. Members have pointed out, in many places including my constituency, that is the amount saved by old people for their burial. I hope that the Minister will do something about this problem.
My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) has spelt out a sensible programme for the longer term which we hope the Government will take on board. They must take responsibility for what is happening. I hope that they have listened to our points and will take at least some short-term action to ameliorate the position, or the inevitable consequence of their inaction will be death for many people.

Mrs. Margaret Beckett: When these debates occur, one is often conscious of the gulf across the Floor of the House—a gulf of experience and understanding.

Mr. Robert Atkins: We understand; Labour does not.

Mrs. Beckett: Every now and again we have a debate like today's, which has not mostly been graced by the presence of the hon. Member for Preston, except when he pops in to make the odd sharp remark.

Mr. Atkins: The hon. Lady means the hon. Member for South Ribble.

Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that correction. I should hate to label any other hon. Member, because of his contribution.
Today's debate is one in which the gulf that is sometimes visible has become a yawning chasm. Opposition Members, such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook), the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) and others too numerous to name, made sensible, valuable contributions and talked about the problems that people are experiencing. They talked about the actual temperatures that people are facing as opposed to the average temperatures experienced


between a Monday and Sunday in a group of weather stations selected so as to ensure that payments are not triggered more than once every five years.
The Government decided, first, that these payments should be made only in a period of severe weather and, secondly, that once every five years was their definition of exceptionally severe. It sometimes seemed that some hon. Members imagined that this was handed down on tablets of stone from Mount Sinai, but that was the definition the Government chose to make.
Some of my hon. Friends have rasied questions about people with prepayment meters who need the money now. They have called on the Government and electricity boards to give clear assurances about disconnections and meeting bills, whether now or in the future. In that context it came ill from the Minister of State to accuse us of scaremongering, particularly when we already know that people are dying under these conditions, but all the more so because, when he was pressed to give assurances about people being given help to meet their bills and about what electricity boards meant by saying that they would deal leniently with people, the best he could come up with was that December was a mild month and perhaps that would help when bills came in at the end of the quarter. That must have done more to strike fear into those concerned about meeting their bills than to give them reassurance.
What we understand it to mean, and what Conservative Members know perfectly well it means, is that the Minister hopes that at the end of the quarter the bills will not be large because of the offset of the mild weather. He has given no assurances about what electricity boards will do regarding disconnections, helping people to meet their bills, or how they will define leniency. If the Minister for Health has a definition of what electricity boards mean by leniency, we will more than welcome hearing it.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight), in a remarkable speech, expressed concern for the old and cold, but reminded us all of the severe problems faced by the rich and accused us on this side of the House of living in a fantasy world. The complacency of most of the speeches made by Conservative Members during the debate has been mind-boggling. From the Government side we heard little but congratulation, first, on the Government's record on the matter in general and, secondly, on their flexibility in lifting the conditions which should apply under the severe weather regulations. Lest any hon. Member challenges it, of course we are all pleased that those conditions have been lifted. Inadequate though the scheme may be, we all want the maximum help for the maximum number that can be squeezed out of the Government.
In their relief at the Government having got them off the hook, most Conservative Members seem to have missed the fact that there is a serious flaw at the heart of the Government's case. They have claimed credit for lifting the trigger conditions because, in the Minister of State's own words, this winter is savage and unprecedented or, as the Prime Minister said, the worst for 40 years. If, as the Government claim, the regulations that they insisted on passing before Christmas are sensitive enough to be triggered in conditions which, although exceptionally severe by the Government's definition, are not as bad as today, why are they not sensitive enough for today's even worse conditions?
After all, the Government are not giving more help because the winter is worse. They are not giving more money in any week, never mind for one week. They are not lifting the capital limit of £500. They are not prepared, as in the past, to make payments to the unemployed or to the homeless unless they have a child under two. All the Government are doing is saying that they will definitely give the help that the regulations said they would give anyway.
We must conclude that the Government have decided to lift the trigger conditions because they feared that even in the worst weather for 40 years the condition they set of minus 1·5 deg. C average temperature for seven days from Monday to Sunday might not be met in every part of the country. They are saying that the conditions they set only a month ago are so harsh, so bureaucratic and so unworkable that they dare not let them stand. Only last week the Minister of State, defending the regulations, said that it was too early to judge them. Yesterday, he said that even if the trigger conditions cannot be met, the payment will be made to those who are eligible.

Mr. Major: I am most grateful to the hon. Lady for her typical courtesy in allowing me to intervene.
It is our expectation that the trigger conditions will be met throughout the country. It is precisely because we expected the conditions to be met that we made our announcement yesterday so that the public may be aware of the position in good time. Our concern for people and our expectation that the trigger conditions would be met throughout the country led us to make our announcement yesterday, and I think that that has been welcomed generally.

Mrs. Beckett: The Minister seems to have forgotten that yesterday he said that payments would be made even if the trigger conditions were not met throughout the country. He said that would be done retrospectively, I believe, and—I cannot remember his exact words—that he would fiddle the law afterwards. The Minister said that yesterday, and I suggest that those who doubt me should read the record.
Although the Government's supporters seem not until this moment to have realised it, the Government are admitting by their action what they have not had the guts to admit in words. They are acknowledging, in effect, that the criticism made of the scheme was correct. The Government have not made their concession because they were overcome with compassion. They have not made it because they wanted people to be sure and secure in the knowledge that payments were being made. I heard the Minister on the radio the other morning explaining that the Government had not issued leaflets because they felt that that might encourage people to claim at a time when they would not be eligible to do so. So much for ensuring that the public knew well in advance what they could claim and that they could have security in the knowledge that payments would be made.
As I have said, the Government have not been overcome with compassion. Even they have been able to see that the scheme would be rightly discredited if the trigger conditions were not met in the worst winter for 40 years.
It is right that we should consider the criticisms that have been made of the scheme. Although the conditions of the scheme will not apply this week, they might apply


next week or the week after, and certainly as soon as the Government think that the public's attention has been diverted. If the Government claim that £5 in one week is enough to meet conditions that might occur every five years, it cannot be enough for the worst conditions that have prevailed for 40 years. There should be more money or payments should be made for more weeks.
Some Conservative Members have tried to argue that a winter premium is not needed because heating allowances are paid all the year round. They may not recall that some of the allowances, such as the central heating addition, have already been abolished. That happened quite recently. Even the allowances that have not been abolished were subjected in 1983–84 to a reduction of £1. That reduction was made to the allowances awarded as of right to meet established need. The heating allowances that are paid automatically throughout the year are paid to those who are known to be likely to have extra heating need throughout the year. They are paid to meet existing bills, not to meet the extra need that arises in the winter, and in any winter, let alone the worst winter for 40 years.
No one with more than £500 in the bank will be able to claim under the scheme. The Prime Minister, who I am glad to see in her place, is always talking about the need to save. Someone who was unwise enough to listen to the Prime Minister and to save just enough to pay what is currently the average cost of a funeral will have to choose under this Government between preserving his or her dignity and paying the heating bill.
The Prime Minister referred most misleadingly to the fact that capital limits are higher now than under the previous Labour Government. In real terms there is little difference between capital limits, but there is a substantial difference between funeral costs now and in the days of the Labour Government. The capital limit under the Labour Government was substantially more than would be needed to meet someone's funeral costs.
Some of my hon. Friends have said that many among the most vulnerable, including many on supplementary benefit and those with young children between the ages of two years and five, whose needs are met automatically under the other allowances for which the Government have been claiming credit, are all excluded from the severe weather payments scheme. Of course, those eligible must make a claim.
The system is harsh and unjust and the Government have tacitly admitted that by suspending the harshest conditions. Will they now have the courage of their convictions and withdraw the regulations? The Government should agree to pay a £5 winter premium to vulnerable groups, as my hon. Friends have suggested.
The Government's record on this issue is one of incompetence and neglect, but, most of all, it is one of complacency. Will the Minister tell the House whether, if only out of fear of the electoral consequences, the Government will now at last do what they would not do before Christmas, out of either common sense or sheer Christian charity?

The Minister for Health (Mr. Tony Newton): I hope that the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) and the House will understand if I observe rather wryly that, following my transfer in September, I had not anticipated

finding myself in this position today. However, I am happy to confront once again the old firm on the Opposition Benches.
Although I shall come fairly speedily to some of the important points raised in the debate in relation to social security issues, I hope that the House will recognise that those issues are by no means the only proper focus of concern about the position of many pensioners and others in such harsh weather. Although those issue; are important, I hope that, whatever the House may disagree about, it will accept that it is right for me to say a word or two about our current assessment of some of the problems that have arisen because of the present weather.
Despite the use that has been made of the figures of excess winter deaths and hypothermia by some hon. Members, and especially the use which the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) made of those figures in a similar debate not many months ago, I do not wish to make purely party points about them. However, there have been echoes in the debate of the hypothermia and excess winter death figures which were used last year in a speech by the hon. Member for Oldham, West and also in an intervention by the Leader of the Opposition.
I advise the hon. Member for Oldham, West that his suggestion that those figures have varied by only about 50 over the years is, in relation to winter mentions of hypothermia, straightforwardly wrong. I should like to put the figures that I have on the record. The number of hypothermia mentions on death certificates for those of all ages in the December to April period in 1978–79 was 725. Last winter the figure was down to 634, and in the intervening period it had been between 50 and 100 less than that. Similarly, for those aged 65 and over, the 1978–79 figure was 570. In the milder winters between then and last winter, it was about 350 at the bottom. Last winter the figure was 552, but that was lower than in 1978–79
As I have said, there are difficulties about those figures and I do not want to play games with such a delicate subject. However, any suggestion from Opposition Members that Government policies have contributed to an increase in hypothermia or excess winter deaths is fanciful and far-fetched.

Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman thinks that that is another success story.

Mr. Newton: Since the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) chooses, with his usual gentleness and tact, to intervene in that way, I should like, without further labouring the point, to give the figures that I have for excess winter mortality over five-year periods. In 1971–75 the figure was 28·2 per cent.; in 1976–80, a period that the Opposition will recognise, it was 33·6 per cent.; and in 1980–85, a period which Conservative Members recognise, it was 29·3 per cent. Let us not hear the Opposition make too much of that.—[interruption.] Having made those points, I am glad to have produced a decent silence on the Opposition Front Bench.
We must recognise that the problem of excess winter deaths rightly concerns everyone in the House. All of us wish to see those figures reduced, as they have been reduced historically over a long period since the war. We want to see the figures brought closer to those of other countries. That has been part of the purpose of the policies we have adopted on the subjects that have been debated today and in a variety of other ways, not least the


arrangements that are currently being made by health authorities to ensure that some of the inescapable consequences of a period of weather such as this are properly dealt with.
As far as I can judge, the hospital services have been coping very well with the position in which the country finds itself. The majority of hospitals yesterday were still admitting non-urgent cases from their waiting lists. Therefore, the pressure was not such as to warrant the restriction of admissions to emergency cases only. However, that must necessarily be a possibility in some circumstances if the situation continues.
There are some exceptions. I have noted the concern expressed during the debate by some of my hon. Friends who represent constituencies in Kent. Certainly in Kent and Lincolnshire some hospitals have had to stop all but emergency work. There are other areas in which patients who have been booked for elective surgery have been unable to travel to hospital. However, the ambulance services—I want to assure the House of this—are following up the urgent cases such as those requiring radiotherapy.
Staff are having difficulty in getting to work in some places. However, nurses, doctors, catering staff and others are sometimes walking many miles to be able to maintain services and some are sleeping overnight at work in order to be there the following morning. I hope that the House will join me in paying tribute to those health workers for what they are doing to maintain services. In some circumstances, the physical conditions are creating great difficulties for the vital services.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West specifically raised an issue concerning the Army and the question of help at Greenwich. We are anxious that every possible help should be given to maintain services. I am advised that the position is that the Woolwich Training Regiment had a free training day and offered its services to Greenwich for snow clearance and other purposes for that day. We know that in some areas the forces are helping out in a variety of ways. For example, in Southend four-wheel drive vehicles are being used to help with emergency services. On the Isle of Sheppey—this will be of interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) who raised the matter in the debate—they are ferrying supplies to hospitals. In Essex they are providing transport and drivers for meals on wheels, and in other places they are providing similar services. They are continuing to receive calls for help and will offer as much help as they can. I am sure that that will apply in Greenwich as elsewhere.

Mr. Winnick: We all admire the work being done by hospitals and voluntary services in helping the elderly during this harsh winter. However, does the Minister recognise that the crux of this debate is the fact that so many elderly people will not receive a penny? They may be a few pennies or a pound or two above supplementary benefit level and they will not receive the heating addition or the £5 a week. Why is it that there is always money in Tory Budgets for the rich and prosperous but that when it comes to the poor and needy there are always excuses as to why the money cannot be found?

Mr. Newton: Since the hon. Gentleman clearly wishes to return the debate to the subject on which he has what

amounts almost to a fixation, I shall be happy to do that. However, he must recognise that the issue of the exceptionally severe weather premium is only one element of the Government's responsibility to pensioners and the rest of the people of this country.
In view of the time, I shall not elaborate further on what my hon. Friend said about the work that we have been doing. I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), for her work with the voluntary organisations in connection with the problems of homeless people that has been welcomed in the House and widely by the voluntary organisations and others.
I assure the House that we shall not let up on those efforts, and we shall continue to support the bodies in every way that we can, and, through our own facilities in the resettlement units, to meet the problems of that group.
I will come to what the hon. Gentleman is obviously concerned that I should talk about and re-emphasise—it is a point that he and others persistently fail to recognise, or, at least, pay proper attention to. The fundamental point made by my hon. Friend the Minister at the start of this debate was that the main means of help with fuel bills to those on supplementary benefit are the scale rates, and the second major means of help are the weekly heating additions which we have greatly extended and improved.
It cannot be said too often that, taken together, those two arrangements mean that any supplementary pensioner householder over 65 years of age is receiving about £8 a week for heating costs each and every week, amounting to over £400 a year. For a supplementary pensioner householder over 85 years of age, the comparable figures are over £11 a week and therefore nearly £600 a year. There is nothing mean or half-hearted about that. It is significantly more generous and goes to significantly more people than anything that any previous Government have done.
As the Social Security Advisory Committee recognised, the arrangements that we have made this year for the additional payments that have been the subject of this debate are a significant advance not only on anything that this Government have been able to do before, but also more than anything that a Labour Government ever tried to do.
It is right again to remind the House that that £5, which so many Opposition Members have talked about as if it were the only help that we were giving to pensioners, is not the only help that we are giving. It means that in any week that it is paid, a supplementary pensioner householder over 85 years of age is receiving about £16 a week for help with fuel bills.
What has amazed me in the course of this debate more than anything else—not least from the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn)—is the fact that against this background the Opposition's remedy appears to be to go back to the electricity discount scheme of 1977 and 1978, one of the most notorious failures in its field that there has ever been. We hear about bureaucracy and complication. That scheme took a 16-page leaflet, with 48 questions and answers, to explain it. Even then one had to obtain another leaflet to tell the claimant how to claim.
We heard from the right hon. Gentleman some half-explanation about why it was confined to electricity when so many pensioners used other forms of heating. I will tell him the answer from his own leaflet. It says:


The Government has only limited funds available to help people".
Wait. The best is yet to come. It goes on:
If other fuels had been included the amount of the discount would have been too small to have been of real help.
I shall tell the House what this has really told us. It has told us that, while everything outside is freezing, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) has melted away because he could not bear to listen to the irresponsible speeches of his hon. Friends.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:

The House divided: Ayes 190, Noes 335.

Division No. 52]
[10 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Eadie, Alex


Alton, David
Eastham, Ken


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Evans, John (St. Helens N)


Ashdown, Paddy
Fatchett, Derek


Ashton, Joe
Faulds, Andrew


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Fisher, Mark


Barron, Kevin
Flannery, Martin


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Forrester, John


Beith, A. J.
Foster, Derek


Bell, Stuart
Foulkes, George


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Bermingham, Gerald
Garrett, W. E.


Bidwell, Sydney
George, Bruce


Blair, Anthony
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Godman, Dr Norman


Boyes, Roland
Golding, Mrs Llin


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Gould, Bryan


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Gourlay, Harry


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Hamilton, James (M'well N)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Hardy, Peter


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Bruce, Malcolm
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Buchan, Norman
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Caborn, Richard
Heffer, Eric S.


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Home Robertson, John


Campbell, Ian
Howarth, George (Knowsley, N)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Howells, Geraint


Canavan, Dennis
Hoyle, Douglas


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Clarke, Thomas
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Clay, Robert
Hume, John


Clelland, David Gordon
Janner, Hon Greville


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
John, Brynmor


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)
Johnston, Sir Russell


Cohen, Harry
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Coleman, Donald
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Conlan, Bernard
Kennedy, Charles


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Kirkwood, Archy


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Lamond, James


Craigen, J. M.
Leadbitter, Ted


Crowther, Stan
Leighton, Ronald


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Cunningham, Dr John
Litherland, Robert


Dalyell, Tam
Livsey, Richard


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Loyden, Edward


Dewar, Donald
McCartney, Hugh


Dixon, Donald
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Dobson, Frank
McGuire, Michael


Dormand, Jack
Maclennan, Robert


Douglas, Dick
McNamara, Kevin


Dubs, Alfred
McTaggart, Robert





McWilliam, John
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Madden, Max
Shields, Mrs Elizabeth


Marek, Dr John
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


Maxton, John
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Maynard, Miss Joan
Skinner, Dennis


Meacher, Michael
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Meadowcroft, Michael
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'ds E)


Michie, William
Snape, Peter


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Soley, Clive


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Spearing, Nigel


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Nellist, David
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


O'Brien, William
Stott, Roger


O'Neill, Martin
Strang, Gavin


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Straw, Jack


Park, George
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Parry, Robert
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Patchett, Terry
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Pike, Peter
Tinn, James


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Prescott, John
Wareing, Robert


Radice, Giles
Weetch, Ken


Randall, Stuart
Welsh, Michael


Raynsford, Nick
Wigley, Dafydd


Redmond, Martin
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)
Wilson, Gordon


Richardson, Ms Jo
Winnick, David


Robertson, George
Woodall, Alec


Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Rogers, Allan
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)



Rowlands, Ted
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sedgemore, Brian
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Sheerman, Barry
Mr. Allen McKay.


NOES


Adley, Robert
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.


Aitken, Jonathan
Buck, Sir Antony


Alexander, Richard
Budgen, Nick


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bulmer, Esmond


Amess, David
Burt, Alistair


Ancram, Michael
Butterfill, John


Arnold, Tom
Carlisle, John (Luton N)


Ashby, David
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Aspinwall, Jack
Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Carttiss, Michael


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Cash, William


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Chalker, Mrs Lynda


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Baldry, Tony
Chapman, Sydney


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Chope, Christopher


Batiste, Spencer
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Bellingham, Henry
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Bendall, Vivian
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Benyon, William
Cockeram, Eric


Best, Keith
Colvin, Michael


Bevan, David Gilroy
Conway, Derek


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Coombs, Simon


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Cope, John


Blackburn, John
Cormack, Patrick


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Corrie, John


Body, Sir Richard
Couchman, James


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Critchley, Julian


Bottomley, Peter
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Dickens, Geoffrey


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Dorrell, Stephen


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Dover, Den


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Bright, Graham
Durant, Tony


Brinton, Tim
Dykes, Hugh


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Eggar, Tim


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Emery, Sir Peter


Browne, John
Evennett, David


Bruinvels, Peter
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Bryan, Sir Paul
Fallon, Michael






Farr, Sir John
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Favell, Anthony
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Fletcher, Sir Alexander
Knowles, Michael


Fookes, Miss Janet
Knox, David


Forman, Nigel
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lang, Ian


Forth, Eric
Lawler, Geoffrey


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Lawrence, Ivan


Fox, Sir Marcus
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Franks, Cecil
Lee, John (Pendle)


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Freeman, Roger
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Fry, Peter
Lester, Jim


Gale, Roger
Lightbown, David


Galley, Roy
Lilley, Peter


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Lord, Michael


Glyn, Dr Alan
Lyell, Nicholas


Goodhart, Sir Philip
McCrindle, Robert


Goodlad, Alastair
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Gorst, John
Macfarlane, Neil


Gow, Ian
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Gower, Sir Raymond
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Greenway, Harry
Maclean, David John


Gregory, Conal
McLoughlin, Patrick


Griffiths, Sir Eldon
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
McQuarrie, Albert


Ground, Patrick
Madel, David


Grylls, Michael
Major, John


Gummer, Rt Hon John S
Malins, Humfrey


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Malone, Gerald


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Maples, John


Hampson, Dr Keith
Marland, Paul


Hanley, Jeremy
Marlow, Antony


Hannam, John
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Mates, Michael


Harris, David
Mather, Sir Carol


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Maude, Hon Francis


Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Hawksley, Warren
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Hayes, J.
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Mellor, David


Hayward, Robert
Merchant, Piers


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Heddle, John
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Henderson, Barry
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Hickmet, Richard
Miscampbell, Norman


Hicks, Robert
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Moate, Roger


Hill, James
Monro, Sir Hector


Hind, Kenneth
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hirst, Michael
Moore, Rt Hon John


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Holt, Richard
Moynihan, Hon C.


Hordern, Sir Peter
Mudd, David


Howard, Michael
Murphy, Christopher


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Neale, Gerrard


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Needham, Richard


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Nelson, Anthony


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)
Neubert, Michael


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)
Newton, Tony


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Nicholls, Patrick


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Normanton, Tom


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Norris, Steven


Hunter, Andrew
Onslow, Cranley


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Oppenheim, Phillip


Irving, Charles
Osborn, Sir John


Jackson, Robert
Ottaway, Richard


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)


Jessel, Toby
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abgdn)


Jones, Robert (Herts W)
Pawsey, James


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Pollock, Alexander


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Porter, Barry


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Portillo, Michael


King, Rt Hon Tom
Powell, William (Corby)





Powley, John
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Price, Sir David
Sumberg, David


Prior, Rt Hon James
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Proctor, K. Harvey
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Raffan, Keith
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Temple-Morris, Peter


Rathbone, Tim
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Thornton, Malcolm


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Thurnham, Peter


Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Roe, Mrs Marion
Tracey, Richard


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Trippier, David


Rost, Peter
Trotter, Neville


Rowe, Andrew
Twinn, Dr Ian


Ryder, Richard
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Sackville, Hon Thomas
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Viggers, Peter


St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Sayeed, Jonathan
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Scott, Nicholas
Waldegrave, Hon William


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Waller, Gary


Shersby, Michael
Walters, Dennis


Silvester, Fred
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Watson, John


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Watts, John


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Speed, Keith
Wheeler, John


Speller, Tony
Whitfield, John


Spencer, Derek
Whitney, Raymond


Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)
Wiggin, Jerry


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Squire, Robin
Wolfson, Mark


Stanbrook, Ivor
Wood, Timothy


Stanley, Rt Hon John
Yeo, Tim


Steen, Anthony
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Stern, Michael



Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Tellers for the Noes:


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Mr. Robert Boscawen and


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.


Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments):-

The House divided: Ayes 332, Noes 185.

Division No. 53]
[10.15 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Bevan, David Gilroy


Aitken, Jonathan
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Alexander, Richard
Biggs-Davison, Sir John


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Blackburn, John


Amess, David
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Ancram, Michael
Body, Sir Richard


Arnold, Tom
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Ashby, David
Bottomley, Peter


Aspinwall, Jack
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Boyson, Dr Rhodes


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Baldry, Tony
Bright, Graham


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Brinton, Tim


Batiste, Spencer
Brittan, Rt Hon Leon


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Brooke, Hon Peter


Bellingham, Henry
Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)


Bendall, Vivian
Browne, John


Benyon, William
Bruinvels, Peter


Best, Keith
Bryan, Sir Paul






Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)


Buck, Sir Antony
Hawksley, Warren


Budgen, Nick
Hayes, J.


Bulmer, Esmond
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Burt, Alistair
Hayward, Robert


Butterfill, John
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Carlisle, John (Luton N)
Heddle, John


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Henderson, Barry


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Hickmet, Richard


Carttiss, Michael
Hicks, Robert


Cash, William
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hill, James


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hind, Kenneth


Chapman, Sydney
Hirst, Michael


Chope, Christopher
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Holt, Richard


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hordern, Sir Peter


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Cockeram, Eric
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Colvin, Michael
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Conway, Derek
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)


Coombs, Simon
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)


Cope, John
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Cormack, Patrick
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Corrie, John
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Couchman, James
Hunter, Andrew


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Dickens, Geoffrey
Irving, Charles


Dorrell, Stephen
Jackson, Robert


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Dover, Den
Jessel, Toby


Durant, Tony
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Dykes, Hugh
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Jones, Robert (Herts W)


Eggar, Tim
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Emery, Sir Peter
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Evennett, David
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Eyre, Sir Reginald
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Fallon, Michael
King, Rt Hon Tom


Farr, Sir John
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Favell, Anthony
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Fletcher, Sir Alexander
Knowles, Michael


Fookes, Miss Janet
Knox, David


Forman, Nigel
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lang, Ian


Forth, Eric
Lawler, Geoffrey


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Lawrence, Ivan


Fox, Sir Marcus
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Franks, Cecil
Lee, John (Pendle)


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Freeman, Roger
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Fry, Peter
Lester, Jim


Gale, Roger
Lightbown, David


Galley, Roy
Lilley, Peter


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Lord, Michael


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Lyell, Nicholas


Glyn, Dr Alan
McCrindle, Robert


Goodhart, Sir Philip
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Goodlad, Alastair
Macfarlane, Neil


Gorst, John
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Gow, Ian
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Gower, Sir Raymond
Maclean, David John


Greenway, Harry
McLoughlin, Patrick


Gregory, Conal
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Griffiths, Sir Eldon
McQuarrie, Albert


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Madel, David


Ground, Patrick
Major, John


Grylls, Michael
Malins, Humfrey


Gummer, Rt Hon John S
Malone, Gerald


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Maples, John


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Marland, Paul


Hampson, Dr Keith
Marlow, Antony


Hanley, Jeremy
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Hannam, John
Mates, Michael


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Mather, Sir Carol


Harris, David
Maude, Hon Francis


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Mawhinney, Dr Brian





Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Shersby, Michael


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Silvester, Fred


Mellor, David
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Merchant, Piers
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Speed, Keith


Miscampbell, Norman
Speller, Tony


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Spencer, Derek


Moate, Roger
Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)


Monro, Sir Hector
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Squire, Robin


Moore, Rt Hon John
Stanbrook, Ivor


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Stanley, Rt Hon John


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Steen, Anthony


Moynihan, Hon C.
Stern, Michael


Mudd, David
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Murphy, Christopher
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Neale, Gerrard
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Needham, Richard
Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)


Nelson, Anthony
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Neubert, Michael
Sumberg, David


Newton, Tony
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Nicholls, Patrick
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Normanton, Tom
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Norris, Steven
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Onslow, Cranley
Temple-Morris, Peter


Oppenheim, Phillip
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Osborn, Sir John
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Ottaway, Richard
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Page, Sir John (Harrow W)
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Thornton, Malcolm


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Thurnham, Peter


Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abgdn)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Pawsey, James
Tracey, Richard


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Trippier, David


Pollock, Alexander
Trotter, Neville


Porter, Barry
Twinn, Dr Ian


Portillo, Michael
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Powell, William (Corby)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Powley, John
Viggers, Peter


Price, Sir David
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Proctor, K. Harvey
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Waldegrave, Hon William


Raffan, Keith
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Rathbone, Tim
Waller, Gary


Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)
Walters, Dennis


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Watson, John


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Watts, John


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Wheeler, John


Roe, Mrs Marion
Whitfield, John


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Whitney, Raymond


Rost, Peter
Wiggin, Jerry


Rowe, Andrew
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Ryder, Richard
Wolfson, Mark


Sackville, Hon Thomas
Wood, Timothy


St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.
Yeo, Tim


Sayeed, Jonathan
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Scott, Nicholas



Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Mr. Robert Boscawen and


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Mr. Tim Sainsbury.


NOES



Abse, Leo
Beith, A. J.


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Bell, Stuart


Alton, David
Benn, Rt Hon Tony


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Bermingham, Gerald


Ashdown, Paddy
Bidwell, Sydney


Ashton, Joe
Boothroyd, Miss Betty


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Boyes, Roland


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)


Barron, Kevin
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)






Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Bruce, Malcolm
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Buchan, Norman
Garrett, W. E.


Caborn, Richard
George, Bruce


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Godman, Dr Norman


Campbell, Ian
Golding, Mrs Llin


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Gourlay, Harry


Canavan, Dennis
Hamilton, James (M'well N)


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Hardy, Peter


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Clarke, Thomas
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Clay, Robert
Heffer, Eric S.


Clelland, David Gordon
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Home Robertson, John


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)
Howarth, George (Knowsley, N)


Cohen, Harry
Howells, Geraint


Coleman, Donald
Hoyle, Douglas


Conlan, Bernard
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Craigen, J. M.
Hume, John


Crowther, Stan
Janner, Hon Greville


Cunliffe, Lawrence
John, Brynmor


Cunningham, Dr John
Johnston, Sir Russell


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Kennedy, Charles


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Dewar, Donald
Kirkwood, Archy


Dixon, Donald
Lamond, James


Dobson, Frank
Leadbitter, Ted


Dormand, Jack
Leighton, Ronald


Douglas, Dick
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Dubs, Alfred
Litherland, Robert


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Livsey, Richard


Eadie, Alex
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Eastham, Ken
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Loyden, Edward


Fatchett, Derek
McCartney, Hugh


Faulds, Andrew
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
McGuire, Michael


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Maclennan, Robert


Fisher, Mark
McNamara, Kevin


Flannery, Martin
McWilliam, John


Forrester, John
Madden, Max


Foster, Derek
Marek, Dr John


Foulkes, George
Marshall, David (Shettleston)





Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Maxton, John
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Maynard, Miss Joan
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


Meacher, Michael
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Meadowcroft, Michael
Skinner, Dennis


Michie, William
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'ds E)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Snape, Peter


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Soley, Clive


Nellist, David
Spearing, Nigel


O'Brien, William
Steel, Rt Hon David


O'Neill, Martin
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Stott, Roger


Park, George
Strang, Gavin


Parry, Robert
Straw, Jack


Patchett, Terry
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Pike, Peter
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Prescott, John
Tinn, James


Radice, Giles
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Randall, Stuart
Wareing, Robert


Raynsford, Nick
Weetch, Ken


Redmond, Martin
Welsh, Michael


Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)
Wigley, Dafydd


Richardson, Ms Jo
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Robertson, George
Wilson, Gordon


Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Winnick, David


Rogers, Allan
Woodall, Alec


Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Rowlands, Ted



Sedgemore, Brian
Tellers for the Noes:


Sheerman, Barry
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
Mr. Allen McKay.


Shields, Mrs Elizabeth

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House recognises the substantial improvement in the levels of supplementary benefit payments together with the containment of inflation, the extension and improvement of heating additions and the introduction of a statutory entitlement to cold weather payments to assist vulnerable groups; notes that these provisions are all running at record levels; and welcomes the Government's continuing commitment to provide good health and social services to the pensioners of this country.

Industrial Training

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. David Trippier): I beg to move,
That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Construction Board) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 8th December, he approved.
The order requires parliamentary approval because one part of it—that covering labour-only subcontracting—involves a levy exceeding 1 per cent. of emoluments. Hon. Members will need no reminding of the importance of the construction industry, which last year accounted for approximately 8 per cent. of gross domestic product. Protecting the skill base of the industry is clearly vital. That is why it is essential that this order should be approved so that money is available to the Construction Industry Training Board to enable it to encourage firms to train in the industry.
The levy proposals are in the same format as those approved by both Houses last year and are expected to raise about £50 million. The levy is made up of three parts. First, there will be an occupational levy on directly employed construction workers in the main industry. A set amount will be raised for each occupation, but this is subject to an overall limit of 1 per cent. of employers' wage bills. The rates vary according to the type of craftsman trained and reflect the training costs of each craft. These rates are in the main the same as last year, but increases are proposed in five areas. These affect less than 10 per cent. of the total directly employed work force in the main industry. These increases are judged necessary to enable the board in particular to increase its contribution to the youth training scheme that it operates on behalf of the industry.
Secondly, with continuing strong support from the industry, the board proposes to retain the 2 per cent. levy on payments made by firms in the main industry for work done by labour only sub-contractors. This rate has remained unchanged since 1981. This reflects the board's continued judgment that labour only sub-contractors, in the main, undertake an inadequate level of training but rely on obtaining skilled manpower trained by other employers. For the sectors covered by those two measures, companies with payrolls of £15,000 or less will not be required to pay levy, and this will exclude about 37 per cent. of all construction firms coming within the board's scope.
Thirdly, for the smaller brick manufacturing sector, the board proposes a rate of 0·05 per cent. of payroll. This is a reduction on last year's rate. All employers with emoluments of £100,000 per annum or less will not be required to pay levy. This is unchanged from last year. These proposals have been unanimously approved by the board and are strongly supported by employer associations in the industry.
Hon. Members will wish to know in particular that the proposals are supported by the Federation of Master Builders, which two years ago expressed concern about the proposed method of calculating levy. At the same time, other employer organisations spoke equally strongly in favour of keeping the current system. The board set up a working party which included the federation to examine this concern and it has agreed that the issue needs to be

re-examined when the board can evaluate the financial implications of participating in the new two-year youth training scheme. I am pleased that the industry has been able to come to at least an interim agreement on this matter, which we have always said is one for the industry to resolve. The proposals have the necessary level of consensus support under the Industrial Training Act 1982.
During the year the board has continued to work hard to develop training in the industry. I was pleased that in April the board signed a contract with the Manpower Services Commission for the new two-year YTS. The board currently has some 17,000 young people undergoing training in its YTS, and this is making a central contribution to training in the industry. In addition, the board is piloting practical skills tests for trainees seeking to qualify as building craftsmen. This represents a major step towards the objective of obtaining a more coherent and relevant structure of vocational qualifications, set by our recent White Paper, "Working Together—Education and Training". The board will be playing a leading role in following up the White Paper's recommendations on vocational qualifications.
The House may also be interested to know that I and my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction, yesterday had a very useful meeting about training with senior figures from the industry, including the chairman of the training board. We talked about a number of important issues which the industry needs to face, and the chairman of the board has agreed to produce by Easter an action plan for promoting training in the industry. This underlines the need for the House to support this order, and I commend it to hon. Members.
The proposals have been adopted by the board without opposition. They have support from the majority of employer organisations in the industry and have been approved by the Manpower Services Commission. They are necessary for the board to continue its important work to extend and improve training in the construction industry and to play a significant part in the Government's training initiatives.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: First, I should like to confirm that the Opposition support the Order. We congratulate the Construction Industry Training Board on the work that it is doing and has done. We also congratulate the board on its strong commitment, which is a mark of the commitment on both sides of the industry, to training. Both sides demonstrate the strength of the industrial training board system. Perhaps the Minister does not like to hear that. His order is about a 1 per cent. levy, which Conservative Members seem to find amusing. They are derisory about it when it is mentioned in terms of the Opposition statement about the sort of training that we want throughout industry.
In this debate we are discussing the Construction Industry Training Board, and it has a sensible system. It has a commitment to training and imposes a levy on employers to make sure that the training that Britain's construction industry needs is carried out. I put that down as a marker. We support the development of skills testing for the construction trades. There have been teething troubles, but it deserves a cautious welcome, because I am sure that the teething troubles will be overcome.
There has been discussion about whether the 1 per cent. levy should be based on turnover or on sales, but what is


important is that the industry should train and that a levy should be imposed. The sad fact is that this is one of the few industries which are left for which the Government have a responsibility to ensure that training is given.
During the next year we hope that the industry will make progress on equal opportunities. I had hoped that the Minister would refer to this. The Manpower Services Commission has taken the initiative, and that is to be welcomed. It should be supported at every level. The trade unions support the move towards equal opportunities. The construction industry has a poor image for equality in race and gender. The CITB ought to adopt a tighter and more co-ordinated approach, and the MSC needs to give an even clearer lead to the CITB and let it know what it must try to achieve.
The Government have a responsibility to underline the importance of equal opportunities to the CITB. Women's groups and the ethnic minorities have lobbied hon. Members. They say that opportunities in the construction industry must be open to all. Far too few women are given the opportunity to train in the traditional construction trades. There is no reason why women should not be good bricklayers, painters and plumbers and become an essential element in the construction industry.
The CITB is not too keen on the suggestion that contract compliance could be used to ensure that equal opportunities are provided for ethnic minorities and women. The Government sometimes ridicule contract compliance, but it has been taken a long way by, surprisingly enough, the MSC. If the managing agent for an MSC scheme, particularly a youth training scheme, does not take seriously the fact that opportunities should be provided for ethnic minorities and women, he runs into real problems.
The MSC has given a lead in contract compliance. The Government cannot parade the MSC before us as the looney Left. Bryan Nicholson is its chairman, and the MSC is carrying out pioneering work. Why should not the Government, local authorities and public enterprises say to those who want to sell their services to them that they will deal only with those companies which train, offer equal opportunities and take seriously their obligations to their employees? That is the question that industrial training boards can advance, and must seek to advance, and the Government have so far ducked that issue. Contract compliance, in terms of a sensible approach to using, in public contract work, proper employers who actually train, who have obligations to their employees, cannot be a bad thing.
There are other issues involved in tonight's order. The wider context of the CITB's work is also very important. In recent years we have seen a major reduction in construction training. All the fine words that the Minister used this evening cannot disguise the fact that yesterday's meeting between the Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction, himself and the construction industry was a crisis meeting. It was a meeting of people dreadfully concerned because—surprise, surprise—training in the construction industry is at such an all-time low that if the Government wanted to build more houses, construct more roads, or rebuild sewers they would be unable to do so because there is a national shortage of skilled workers in the construction industry. That is bad enough this week when we are talking about the construction industry,

because no matter whether it is a plumber, a bricklayer or an electrician, there is a tremendous shortage of skilled building workers in a nation with nearly 4 million unemployed people, many of them building workers. It is true that many of them are not in the right part of the country at the right time, but the fact is that the meeting yesterday was a crisis one about how we can get trained people in the building and construction industry in a hurry.
One of the problems with the CITB and the levy system as it now works is that the CITB can work only on the basis of what employers say they need at this particular time. The big trouble with the CITB is that it cannot forecast a likely need in, say, two or three years' time for more skilled workers in the building industry, for which we should make plans, because since the present Government came to power in 1979 they have had an appalling record on housebuilding. There has been absolutely no certainty about how many houses and roads there will be and what other construction will take place.
The construction industry has been at an all-time low for the past seven years. In such a situation, employers, the people who decide what training will take place, even under the CITB system or the levy system, do not train.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Sheerman: No, I shall not; I have not finished making my point. The industry does not train, and because it does not train the ITB is unable to train either, or to plan for the future. Here we are in 1987, with a slight sign of an upturn in building, and with no possibility of finding the skilled workers that we need for that change. Even more significant, in a few short months there is likely to be a Labour Government. There will then be an enormous demand for skilled workers in the construction industry, because we will turn our hands to building up our country again, making decent homes for people to live in, having new public investment, and we wall inherit, as we always do when we get into government, the apathy and neglect of a Conservative Government, and in this particular respect, the very real problem of training skilled people in the building industry in a very short time.

Mr. Thurnham: The hon. Gentleman has said that there is now less training by firms. Is he aware that at the meeting yesterday, to which he referred—this crisis meeting—a paper submitted by the CITB said that the ratio of trainees to the directly employed work force is now the same as it was in 1976, so there has been no change?

Mr. Sheerman: If the hon. Gentleman would take the time to talk to CITB officials, as I do regularly, he would know that not only has the proportion declined over the years, but that the number of people being trained has dropped dramatically. In 1979 there were not an enormous number of YTS trainees. As the Under-Secretary of State knows, I am not against youth training. This is not skills training, but a possible introduction to skills training. The ratio of trainees to those who finish their apprenticeship is well down on 1979. As I understand from yesterday's meeting, the CITB said that if it was given resources, had genuine leadership from the Government and the Government said, "Go, boy, go for it", training under the CITB could be increased by 25 per cent. But there will not


be a 25 per cent. increase in training in the short term, because the Government do not have the courage to show leadership in expanding training.
It is not just a matter of the CITB having a crisis meeting with the Government. The hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) admitted that it was a crisis meeting.

Mr. Thurnham: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I referred to a meeting yesterday, not to a crisis meeting.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): That is not a point of order.

Mr. Sheerman: The hon. Gentleman can read Hansard in the morning to see what he said, unless he does some nifty footwork.
It is had enough that there are not skilled workers over the length and breadth of the country to start the task of rebuilding it, but only six days ago the Engineering Industry Training Board—the central training board for manufacturing industry—said that there was a crisis in training and an appalling level of skills at every stage of the engineering industry. Every industry is bedevilled by the Government's lack of concern for and neglect of training. Our work force is less trained and less skilled than ever before, and less trained and less skilled than that of any of our international competitors. All that was glossed over by the Under-Secretary of State, who said little about training costs.
A much more important matter is the continuing uncertainty about what work will be available. If employers are uncertain about the industry's future workload, they will not train. They have not done so and they will not do so in the future. There are significant skill shortages across the board and large numbers of building workers—an estimated 450,000 or more—are out of work. Perhaps a Conservative Member will ask: if there are 450,000 workers out there, why do they not suddenly come on stream? The reason is that skills are not like investments in a bank which are conveniently there for use on demand. Skills rust and decay. If a building worker is on the dole for a few months and then a few years, he needs retraining and upgrading. Many of the highly skilled people in the construction industry who have been out of work for a long time now, tragically need retraining.
That brings me to a point that the Minister skated over niftily. We still do not have under this Government or under the CITB an adequate mechanism for dealing with labour-only contractors. Whether the levy is doubled or not, labour-only contractors do not train. I have not seen any mechanism under the ITB, under the Government's legislation or under the MSC's intervention to deal effectively with that enormous percentage of the industry that does not train and evades its responsibility to the work force.
It has been estimated in recent months that the major social and economic needs of the country could be met through new construction. Even on a conservative scale it is estimated that we could spend £20 billion on the repair and maintenance of local authority homes, £2 billion on the repair and maintenance of hospitals, £4 billion on roads and so on. To put it in perspctive, the total value of construction activity at the moment is only £23 billion. We could have a new building programme, under a decent Government, that would take us to a £28 billion

investment in the future of our people. Tens of thousands of people could go back to work in construction. Rather than spending the whole of our North sea oil inheritance on the dole queue, we could have invested that money in new homes, new roads, new sewers and new hospitals. Under this Government we see that money being wasted and the skills of the people who could have produced that new development decaying.
Three ingredients are missing. The first, of course, is a Labour Government. [Interruption.] Conservative Members do not like that prospect, but they will meet it soon. The second is a commitment from a Government who have closed their eyes to the opportunity to get people back to work at a low cost to build things that are needed. Thirdly, the Government should ensure—the record of the Minister on this is disgraceful—that the unemployed have sufficient skills to produce the products that people want.
Here we see one of the deficiencies of the ITB system,. I am a great defender of the industrial training board system, but the boards have to be expanded. We do not say that everything that ITBs traditionally did was wonderful. We should not just restore them, but would improve them. We would learn from experience to make them even more efficient. Within the present structure, industries find the training remit too confining. They could do much more. That is what the EITB said last week and what the CITB is saying to the Minister at present.
ITBs cover only a meagre 25 per cent. of employees in British industry. Because they are not effectively linked to an economic and employment strategy, they cannot easily meet the challenges of training. What is missing from the Govermnment's policy is a link between a strategy for economic development and growth. As they set an objective of a target for growth, whether in house construction, public service construction or hospital building, they should at the same time plan—a word which the Minister and the Government do not like to hear—the construction targets and the training to go with it. Unfortunately, the Government are frightened to plan construction and the economy. They are incapable of planning the training of the British work force and all that that entails.
A Labour Government would set the challenges of generating economic growth and getting people back to work. Such a Government would plan for their training, and that is something that the present Government will never do. We have seen this with the EITB and the CITB, the two major training boards that still remain. I fear to think what is happening in the rest of British industry where industrial training boards were thrown away, where they were wasted.
Under a Labour Government there will be a commitment to link training with a strategy to get people back to work. We shall bring them back to build our homes and to rebuild houses and our infrastructure. We shall encourage the stability and continuity of growth in the industry. That will make training a sane possibility.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Sheerman: I am bringing my remarks to a conclusion. If the hon. Gentleman is able to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he will be able to make his contribution to the debate.
I am sure that the ITBs want to encourage and see occur the decasualisation of construction employment, and that will happen under a Labour Government. We shall tackle the problem of labour-only supply. That is the effective way of getting the amount of training that we need by the community as well as by the industry. We shall move towards a more regular employment structure throughout the construction industry.
The Government must take responsibility for training. So far they have denied that responsibility and we have seen the end of industrial training as we used to know it, along with skills training. Nothing that the Government have done has fooled the British public into believing that the highly skilled men and women whom we need to compete in international markets and to meet the challenge of technology have been trained under their stewardship. The Opposition support the order, but we must use this occasion to point out that industrial training has been left to go to rack and ruin.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: Having listened to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), I am surprised that he did not suggest that there should be an industrial training board for Opposition spokesmen. I should think that the electorate will continue to ensure that the Labour party remains the missing ingredient in the mixture that has been advanced in all the hot air that has been generated this evening.
I support the order, although it is not on every occasion that an employer wishes to support a levy on his operations. The characteristics of the construction industry, however, support the need for a collective training organisation. I pay tribute to the good work that is done by the Construction Industry Training Board. As a member of the Electrical Contractors Association, I should like to say how much the employers welcome the way in which the board has co-operated with all the training arrangements which have been made.
I draw the attention of the hon. Member for Huddersfield to a characteristic of the electrical contracting industry's training arrangements. The fact is that many more apprentices were taken on once the high starting rates for apprentices had been reduced to levels more comparable with those that prevail on the continent. The present starting rate is 22·5 per cent. of the adult craft rate, which enables employers to pay for training in a way that they seem unable to manage in other parts of the construction industry. If the hon. Gentleman feels that there is a lack of training, I suggest that the high starting rates which have been imposed by union agreements in the past must be one of the reasons.
The hon. Gentleman did not seem to appreciate the argument advanced by the CITB that an average of 9·5 per cent., as a ratio of trainees to the directly employed work force, has prevailed from 1976 to 1985. Therefore, when the hon. Gentleman says that the ratios have changed, he is not looking at the figures.
There are two points of concern. One is shoddy work. I was appalled to read that the Department of the Environment had received 42,000 complaints of shoddy work. I am sure that one way of overcoming that is to ensure that there are skill tests for those who undergo training in the industry. I hope that the pilot work taking

place at present will lead to skill tests for all branches of the industry, as has been done in the electrical contracting industry for some years.
The suggestion that there should be a kite mark to tackle cowboys may well help to reduce the vulnerability of the public to shoddy workmanship. I hope that that idea is successfully developed.
I should like to deal with what the hon. Member for Huddersfield called the problem of labour-only subcontractors. It is unfortunate that he was not able to visit Japan last year with the Select Committee on Employment and learn some of the different ways in which the industry there is organised and the training methods that are used. As far as I am aware, there is no great crisis in the construction industry in Japan, although many firms have 100 per cent. arrangements for labour-only subcontracting. It is instructive to know that people in Japan still look on some matters as we do here. The Japanese Ministry of Labour's book on human resources development said:
In Japan, however, skilled workers are still socially underestimated. Because of excessive importance attached to academic background, they do not yet enjoy an established social position.
Therefore it seems that we have the same problems in both countries.
I know that my hon. Friend the Minister visited Japan in May. Looking at his itinerary, I know that he did not have the time to talk to people in the construction industry. Perhaps next time he goes he might be able to do so. I am sorry that my right hon. and learned Friend the Paymaster General had to be called back so suddenly from Japan because of the confused ideas on the Opposition Benches as to exactly what debate we were going to have today. Had they been able to make up their mind at a proper time, my right hon. and learned Friend would have been able to continue his visit.
I should like to mention to the hon. Member for Huddersfield a typical Japanese company—Kokko Shisetsu Kogyo Company Ltd. The president is an excellent gentleman. His name is Hiroshi Sakanishi. He told me that the turnover of his firm was a figure in yen equivalent to £10 million a year. However, he employed only 80 people. That ratio would be out of proportion for any electrical contractor in this country. However, he said that, in addition, up to about 300 people worked for his firm on a self-employed basis, working in small groups of five, 10 or perhaps more on a labour-only subcontracted basis. Although he is a leading electrical contractor in Japan he does not employ any electricians at all. We should look at that example and see—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must remind the hon. Gentleman that we are debating an order that is concerned with the levy and the purpose of it. He should relate his remarks to that.

Mr. Thurnham: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
We are talking about a 2 per cent. levy for the labour-only element. It is because of that 2 per cent. that we are having to address the matter tonight. I should like to draw attention to the fact that it should be seen not as a problem but as an opportunity for more flexible working practices to be introduced into the industry, as long as the measures that are carried out for training in Japan are looked at closely by the CITB as a model for what can be done in this country. I recommend the CITB to pay close attention to the way in which licences are issued to skilled operatives


in Japan as an incentive for people to undertake training with the provision of loans for training costs from the Government.
I believe that we can learn considerably by looking at other countries—for example, Germany, where four times as many apprentices are employed because of a much lower starting rate of pay.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I support the order inasmuch as it provides for the continuance of training by the Construction Industry Training Board, but I have one or two questions to which I hope the Minister will have time to reply.
The industry, according to my information, perceives itself as having problems. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) referred to a "crisis meeting". Whether or not that is the case, it is clear that, first, the amount of training is directly related to confidence and optimism in the industry and, secondly, that various figures seem to be bandied about. The proportion of the work force in the industry engaged in training at any given time has fallen over the past six or seven years. If that is in dispute, perhaps the Minister can clarify the situation, because there is no point in arguing over spurious statistics. It seems to me that that is maintained by the board itself to be part of its problem.
I want to take up the comments of the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham), because I notice that the Construction Industry Training Board points to the increase in the number of self-employed in the industry as a problem. I do not believe that the Minister would regard the increased number of self-employed as a problem. I certainly do not regard it as a problem in the sense that we should not welcome it. The problem is how we absorb them into the mainstream of the training activity. If I am right in my presumption, part of the way of getting them to contribute is to go for the 2 per cent. levy, which is why we are having this debate.
I do not accept the presumption that people who are small by definition—self-employed, labour-only contractors—even if they do not directly contribute to the training process in the terms of the training that they do, are not a proper and legitimate component of the industry.
I have watched the oil industry in my area and the way that it has developed, with a number of sub-contractors. The big companies tend to do the bulk of the training, which spins off into the foundations of smaller companies which still feed back into the industry. I am not objecting to the point of the levy; I am simply saying that I hope we do not get into a bureaucratic way of restricting the flexibility within the industry so that we discourage flexible developments.
The Government have got themselves into a slight bind, because they have come forward with an order fully endorsed by the industry and fully backed by the MSC, which basically is saying, "We have a training board that imposes a levy. It is working well and we want an order to support it." Yet it is the same Government who disbanded the training boards.
According to the Minister:
Training has improved significantly since the demise of the 16 industrial training boards.
I have been unable to find any evidence to support that. If that sort of statement is made by a Minister, it requires proof and support.

Mr. Trippier: I would not dare to suggest that the hon. Gentleman is taking my words out of context, but, if he studies Hansard and reads the various exchanges at Question Times, he will discover that I have made it clear that I have undertaken an investigation into the work of the non-statutory training organisations. I have informed the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) of that and am awaiting the result.

Mr. Bruce: I accept what the Minister says, but we need the evidence to substantiate that statement. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to substantiate it.
There is a widespread view that the Government have substantially dismantled training organisations for reasons which, if one were fair-minded, one would say might or might not be justified, but they certainly have not convinced people that what has been put in their place is adequate or will enable us to cope with our existing problems, never mind the challenges of the future.
In that context, the Government are saying in the order that the Construction Industry Training Board effectively wishes to extend its existing functions, and they ask the House to support it. In principle, of course, there is support from both sides of the House. However, let me ask a few pertinent questions.
If the Government support the order, it behoves them at least to explain the continuation of the levy. I think that I know the answer. The board currently has reserves of £73·5 million, and, if I heard the Minister correctly, the continuation of the levy is likely to yield something in excess of £50 million in the current year. Is the Minister satisfied that that is the kind of money that the industry needs and that it will be sensibly and intelligently spent, rather than it being just a matter of, "That is what we have been getting for the last few years, so let us carry it through."? It is important that that should be justified. I am not suggesting that it is not, but it should be explained.
It is reasonable to ask the Government to explain how they satisfy themselves that the work of a board, for which Parliament has to approve the levy, is being conducted fully and satisfactorily. I am not suggesting that it is not. All the comments from other speakers shows a general satisfaction with the board. However, I should be interested to know how the Government go about satisfying themselves that a levy is justified, both in terms of reserves available, and the proposals to go with it.
It would be helpful if the Government would say how the labour-only contractors have been affected by the 2 per cent. levy. I understand the reason behind it, but is there an effect in terms of their trying to evade it, because, after all, at that end of the market there are ways of getting round such things, and, given the extra levy that they are being asked to pay, are they getting a perceived benefit at the end of the day? I would be prepared to accept that their perceived benefit is their ability to recruit trained people from larger companies. That is the way that it tends to work. I do not regard that as an unobjectionable argument, but it is right that it should be explained and justified.
Over the past two or three years we have experienced a depression in the construction industry that has clearly had an effect on training within that industry. We have had a general debate on the importance and merits of training. We have, I think, acknowledged that the amount of training that goes on is directly related to activity.


Therefore, it is important that the Government should recognise that they need to instil confidence within the industry if they are to get training moving.
Anything that the Government can do over and above the order to stimulate and to instil confidence in the construction industry will provide the framework wherein the levy will produce the trained people who, regardless of who wins the next election—I hope that the Minister believes this—will be necessary.
Britain wants to see some investment in our infrastructure and in the quality of our housing stock. That must be confronted and we need trained people in industry to do the job. To the extent that the order will contribute to that, I welcome it, but I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that I have asked some pertinent questions which he should answer.

Mr. Roy Galley: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will by now be bathing in a rosy glow of satisfaction, having heard plaudit for his order from Members on both sides of the House. Therefore, it is almost churlish of me to enter a minor note of dissent and anxiety about some aspects of the order.
Were I my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary I would be rather worried about the order because, listening carefully to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), this sort of order is but one brick to the foundations of the centralised planning for which the hon. Gentleman so wonderfully looks.
On the macro level and almost going off at a tangent, if the hon. Gentleman is so concerned and regards centralised planning as such a key factor in the regeneration of the nation, he should go for a few months to countries behind the iron curtain, as my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) and I have done recently, and he will see the effect of that centralised planning.
On the micro level, I am rather concerned about how the order will relate to small firms within the construction industry. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take account of those worries in any future consideration of the issues.
The construction industry is dominated by a plethora of small firms. I accept that, as a group, small firms receive a large amount of assistance with training. Some of the small firms are unable to take advantage of the Construction Industry Training Board's facilities but are, nevertheless, required to pay the levy.
For some time the exemption limit has been set at £15,000 of payroll. In effect, that means a firm with, at most, three employees. The order maintains that exemption level. Every firm that has more than three employees must pay the levy. For many small firms—my hon. Friend is the Minister with responsibility for small firms—that represents a considerable financial burden. If those firms received their money's worth from that levy, it would not be a burden, but, in many cases, they do not.
At this stage, I must enter a caveat. Many representations that I have received about the order have come from a small firm of civil engineering contractors. However, my inquiries suggest that those problems are common to many other similar companies, especially in the north of England.
Such small firms are seldom able to allow staff time off for off-site training. In today's competitive climate such firms cannot afford to carry surplus staff. They need to be able to react to an extremely competitive market place. Even with grant aid, the course fees and other associated costs can make the training offered by the CITB almost prohibitive. Courses cannot always be specifically designed to the needs of particular firms. Even courses held at local colleges, for which grant aid may be available, are not necessarily relevant to the firms' specific work. When appropriate courses are available they are often held too far way. The firm in Halifax—which has made representations to me—is aware of a relevant course that is held in Norfolk. That is too far away.
When operatives have been trained and have obtained a new qualification, they often move to a larger firm where they receive higher wages. Thus, the small firm pays the levy and takes advantage of the training facilities but the trained staff go off to other employers.
If one considers the global figures, small firms may represent a high proportion of the grant take-up. That tendency relates specifically to building firms, not to civil engineering firms or other disciplines.

Mr. Sheerman: What is the name of the firm in Halifax?

Mr. Galley: It is not right for the hon. Gentleman to make a comment from a sedentary position, and I am not prepared to name a firm because I am dealing with principles rather than individual firms.

Mr. Sheerman: It does not exist.

Mr. Galley: It is quite wrong for the hon. Member for Huddersfield to make a comment from a sedentary position, and it is wrong to impugn my honour and integrity.

Mr. Sheerman: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is this a point of order.

Mr. Sheerman: I wish to apologise to the hon. Member for Halifax if he thought that I was impugning his honour. I merely think that it is suspicious that he cannot name the firm that is having such terrible troubles.

Mr. Galley: It would be wrong and invidious to name a particular firm. I have consulted more than one firm. The hon. Member for Huddersfield was impugning my honour because he suggested that the firm does not exist. It jolly well does, and it will be deeply concerned about the hon. Gentleman's comments.
In some sectors of the construction industry it may be that the large firms are receiving a disproportionate share of the benefits while small firms pay a disproportionate share of the levy. In smaller companies the emphasis is often placed on on-site training, but they may then lose experienced staff to the larger companies. As a result, small companies may be given no recognition of the contribution that they make to on-site training. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Huddersfield has again impugned my honour from a sedentary position, and is quite wrong.
My hon. Friend the Minister may well say that the levy arrangements are subject to consultation with the industry, but the evidence seems to be that many of the representative bodies are, of necessity, dominated by the large firms, and that the smaller firms have a relatively small voice in those consultations. In specific sectors there


is, therefore, some evidence of small businesses being treated unfairly. However, there are ways of mitigating that.
I am very disappointed that the order does not address itself to those problems. The Engineering Industry Training Board excludes from any levy all those firms with fewer than 40 employees. Such a blanket exemption may not he appropriate for the construction industry, but it is surely possible to have two or three grades of payment, whether devised on a pay roll or number of employees basis. It may be possible to say that people with 10 to 20 employees will pay one rate while those with more than 20 employees pay another. Alternatively, the Construction Industry Training Board is very much taken with the idea of the pay roll, and so one could say that firms with pay rolls o £15,000 to £30,000 should pay one levy while those with bigger pay rolls pay another.
The order makes special provision for certain groups, with particular reference to brick manufacturers. Similar arrangements could be made for other specific sectors of the construction industry that do not fully benefit at present. Therefore, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will note the concerns of small firms when making any future arrangements for the Construction Industry Training Board.

Mr. Richard Page: I shall make a brief speech. I am delighted to see my right hon. and learned Friend the Paymaster General in the Chamber, fresh back from Japan in order to hear this important debate.
I have no direct experience of the construction industry, but I have experience of training boards and of filling in the necessary forms for them, with all the bureaucracy that is involved. Indeed, I take on board the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Galley) about the effect that the order may have on small firms. I fully endorse the remarks made about the national shortage of skilled workers. I realise that we must ensure that more and more people can pursue the various necessary crafts and professions if we are to maintain our export drive and remain a competitive nation.
The training boards were launched in the 1970s with every good intention, particularly with regard to matching the training programmes being introduced by other countries, such as West Germany. We had only to consider the number of apprentices and training courses that those countries had in place to know that we came out very badly. Mention has already been made of the trade union rates being applied to apprenticeships in Britain compared with the situation in West Germany. British employers were consequently reluctant to take on unskilled youngsters at such high rates.
However, the bureaucracy often escalated to match the activities of those training boards and that hit small firms. They started to rebel against all the form filling. Often the levy grant system turned out to be just a recycling process with no real influence on the level of training to be provided for those working in those companies. Many small firms endured that, along with all the other centralised taxes, such as rates and national insurance, and just added the training board levies to those figures. We must ask what effectiveness is being achieved by our training boards in providing the skills and expertise that we need for the future. My hon. Friend the Member for

Halifax and others have made the point that training is carried out by large firms. They produce the skilled people who take the more senior managerial positions within industry.
Although I shall support the order, I should like my hon. Friend the Minister to consider whether the £15,000 exemption level will be too low in future and whether it should be considerably higher. Small firms cannot effectively carry out training if they are levied at above £15,000. It must be a considerably higher figure. They do not have the management time to devote to training and they do not have time to send their young trainees on courses. They do not get contracts that produce the necessary revenue for them to finance young apprentices or trainees on day release and other courses.
When the measure comes before the House in a year or so, I urge the Minister to consider raising the exemption level to a considerably higher figure than £15,000, to give small firms relief from the bureaucratic form-filling involved and, possibly, give large firms the opportunity to carry out the training schemes that will be necessary for the industry in future.

Mr. Trippier: This has been an interesting and wide-ranging debate. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page) in welcoming the presence of my right hon. and learned Friend the Paymaster General, who, due to the stupidity of Her Majesty's Opposition, has had his essential visit to Japan curtailed. We all regret that fact, but are delighted to see him.
The CITB will welcome the complimentary remarks made by hon. Members. Obviously, I wholly endorse them. I was sorry to hear the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), in his initial address, refer to the proposed 1 per cent. levy which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) suggested, perhaps not with the total agreement of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). In fact, as the hon. Member for Huddersfield has heard me say in the past, the Department of Employment has calculated that, if this were to be applied across industry and commerce, it would lead to an increase of about 15 percentage points in corporation tax.

Mr. Sheerman: It would not.

Mr. Trippier: The hon. Gentleman seems to doubt the statisticians in the Department of Employment. These are not politicians' figures. The prospect of such a levy being imposed on the industry would fill the hearts and minds of the employers represented on the CITB with absolute terror. As the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) was prepared to admit, there are people operating in small business—which he supports, as I do—who are taking a risk. The construction business is a more risk-taking one than many others that we might think of. It is vital for us all to recognise that those who are prepared to take risks should not be over-regulated and over-penalised by increases in corporation tax or in direct taxation. Government Members totally disagree with the hon. Members for Huddersfield and, dare I say it, for Gordon on this and similar issues.
The hon. Member for Huddersfield made a point about equal opportunities. I agree wholeheartedly with what he


said, with the exception of the point that he made about contract compliance. I had a meeting with members of the CITB in the Department of Employment about progress on equal opportunities. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to point out that it appears that we have a problem in the construction industry. But he was a little unfair to suggest that only the MSC, with the construction industry and the CITB, was taking the lead because both my right hon. and learned Friend the Paymaster General and I have played an active role and are anxious that this type of initiative should develop. I am glad that we shall enjoy the hon. Gentleman's support. It is right to pursue the initiative, and we are intent on doing that.
It is important that the House should know that the CITB could not be recoganised as an approved training organisation for YTS unless it complied with a new mandate being given by the MSC which also emanated from the meeting in the Department in September.
I did not agree with what the hon. Gentleman said about contract compliance. The employers' representatives on the CITB would run a mile from contract compliance. The hon. Gentleman should see some of the mail that I receive on this issue from employers in the industry who must comply with the regulatory paperwork introduced by some Left-wing head bangers in local authorities, especially in London and the south-east. If they have to dance to the tune of that sort of regulation—they are prepared to do that because they need to work—they are prohibited from getting on with the job that they do best, which is creating wealth and work. I could not wait to hear what the CITB would say about contract compliance, but I was certain that there would be nothing unanimous about its decision.

Mr. Sheerman: What is the difference between the sort of contract compliance that the MSC under Bryan Nicolson is introducing for recognised approved trainers under YTS and what the Minister constantly refers to as that of head bangers and the loony Left? He knows that exactly the same is going on in contract compliance in terms of ethnic minorities, equal opportunities and the employment of women. He knows as well as I do that the CITB has swallowed what for some employers was a bitter pill in terms of the MSC's demands for contract compliance. What is the difference between that and what local authorities demand?

Mr. Trippier: There is a great difference. If the hon. Gentleman has taken the time and trouble to study the documents sent out by local authorities, he will realise that it is madness for authorities to issue them because of the problems that must be tackled by employers. We are talking principally about a problem with regard to YTS. If I could just have the hon. Gentleman's attention for a moment, he will find that we have another point of agreement.
Our concern is with YTS in particular. The CITB should be proud that it has a higher number of YTS trainees than any other sector in industry generally. That is fine. We have detected a problem, and one does not have to be clever or a genius to see that few coloured people appear to be taken on by the industry. If that point will unite the Opposition with the Government, I welcome it. Certainly, the CITB has undoubtedly taken that point firmly on board.
The hon. Gentleman referred to a meeting yesterday with the Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction and me as a crisis meeting. It was called some months ago by my hon. Friend the Minister. I reached the same conclusions as he reached, but from an entirely different route—a report issued by the Federation of Master Builders. My right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State thought that it was rather quizzical that we identified several skill shortages—about 4,000—yet we had an unacceptably high level of unemployment. [Interruption.] With respect, I am about to deal with the hon. Gentleman's point.

Mr. Sheerman: If yesterday's meeting was not a crisis meeting and the Government had for some time recognised severe skill shortages in the construction industry, why have they waited since September to have a meeting to talk about them? That is a dereliction of duty if ever I heard one.

Mr. Trippier: I do not think so. The hon. Gentleman ought to do his homework a little more carefully. He does not seem to appreciate that the CITB has considerable reserves of money. He did not mention that and I do not think that he even knows about it. That helps to answer one of the questions asked by the hon. Member for Gordon in his intervention. We drew the attention of the CITB to this problem because we knew that it had reserves which we thought could be better spent. The hon. Member for Huddersfield cannot have it both ways. On the one hand, he says that he wants to see a replication of statutory training boards right across Britain in different sectors. On the other hand, here is a training board which is not meeting a specific shortage—the shortage of skill.
Yesterday's meeting was not a crisis meeting. We wanted it to be properly prepared. We wanted the trade unions to be properly represented—which they were—and we wanted to see the representatives and leaders of industry from various trade associations. It was a most constructive meeting, and, as a result of it, we have asked the CITB to come back to us by the end of March with a specific proposal to deal with the skill shortage which I have already said will be about 4,000 apprenticeships. I have no doubt that the board's response will be positive.
The hon. Members for Huddersfield and for Gordon were wrong when they said that the number of people being trained in the industry was falling. Between 1985 and 1986 there was an increase of 2,000 apprenticeships in the industry. The number of YTS trainees was also on the increase. [Interruption.] I am talking about 1985 to 1986. Certainly, there have been ups and downs, but it is unfair to say that the figure is still going down, because it has increased.
As I have said, between 1985 and 1986 there was an increase of 2,000 apprenticeships in the industry. Given that the shortage is 4,000, I do not believe, nor does the CITB, that the problem is insurmountable. We are spending £1·5 billion annually on training—more than double the amount that was being spent when we took office. It is grossly unfair for the hon. Member for Huddersfield to suggest to the House that we are not taking a lead in training. I have already said how we are doing that with the CITB in two specific areas. We are convinced that the CITB, however good a job it is doing at the moment, could do much more by encouraging employers to regard training as an investment and not as a cost.
I listened carefully to the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham), who spoke about the skill tests. He may be interested to hear that at yesterday's meeting one of the employers' representatives talked about quality assurance—a point which my hon. Friend touched upon in his speech. I agree with him that quality assurance needs careful study. I hope that by March, when the CITB is to come forward with the other proposals that I mentioned, it will also deal in some detail with how quality assurance can be improved.
The CITB is also to report on the labour-only subcontracting problem, about which my hon. Friend spoke. I have no doubt that the CITB will read with interest his contribution to this debate.
I have answered the first question put to me by the hon. Member for Gordon. He made a fair point when he spoke about the self-employed, but it is incorrect to suggest that people who are exempt from paying the levy cannot receive grants from the CITB. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Galley) got that a little wrong. It is wrong and it is important for me to put it right. Of course, there are exemptions for those who have a payroll of under £15,000, but they can certainly enjoy the training facilities available for employers and employees, although it would be principally those who are self-employed who would use those facilities, either locally and organised by the CITB or through distance learning modules. My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax did not mention that, but it holds the key to the problem that he identified. They can also use open learning generally for which the Manpower Services Commission is responsible. It was again raised at the meeting yesterday afternoon and we all agreed—the Government, unions and the employers' organisations—that this must be the way forward. Distance learning and open learning should be developed and strengthened.

Mr. Galley: Even with open learning and distance learning, is my hon. Friend able to guarantee that the facilities that will be made available will be relevant to firms throughout the industry, including civil engineering? I do not see how he can give such a guarantee.

Mr. Trippier: I have to be careful how I answer my hon. Friend, because he has asked for a 100 per cent. guarantee. My hon. Friend said that for a firm in his constituency the specific kind of training that was required was available only at the other end of the country. The only answer to that problem is distance learning, and it can be provided relatively cheaply. If that need is not being met, I should

like to discuss with the CITB and the MSC how it could be met, and I shall do everything in my power to try to put it right.
The hon. Member for Gordon asked me how the Government monitor the spending of the CITB. Initially, it is monitored by MSC officials, the Department and Ministers. I do not suggest that the CITB has been irresponsible, but the CITB's spending led to the meetings to which I referred earlier. We are anxious to get the extra value for money to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
The hon. Members for Gordon and for Huddersfield referred to the depression in the industry. The Labour, Liberal and the Social Democratic parties have a vested interest in trying to paint as black a picture as they can, but output in the construction industry has grown steadily since 1981. In 1985 it was 11 per cent. above the 1981 level, and 1986 promises to be the fifth successive year in which output in the industry has grown. It will be the first time that that has happened since the 1960s. In the first nine months of the year, output was nearly 3 per cent. higher than in the same period in 1985. It is particularly encouraging that the growth was led by the private sector. Private industrial and commercial output in 1985 was the highest for 14 years and the second highest ever. In the first nine months of 1986 private commercial output was at the highest level ever—up by 12 per cent. over the same period a year ago.
It has been claimed again tonight that the Government should spend more on the infrastructure to help to create additional jobs in the industry. The Government are aware of the need for spending on the infrastructure and they will direct whatever resources can be afforded to those areas that the public sector can tackle. In the autumn statement the Government were able to increase the provision for capital expenditure on construction by nearly £1 billion and they have provided £450 million for housing. That illustrates the support that the Government are giving to the industry and to training in the industry.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Construction Board) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 8th December, be approved.

LIAISON COMMITTEE

Ordered,
That Sir Humphrey Atkins be discharged from the Liaison Committee and Mr. Michael Mates be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Sainsbury.]

Mr. Alexander Ogorodnikov

Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sainsbury.]

Mr. Ken Hargreaves: During the whole of Advent, from 30 November until Christmas eve, Athanasius Hart, an iconographer and lay reader in the Orthodox Church, lived in a tiny cage in St. Sepulchre's church in London. He was on a complete fast. He was attempting to draw the attention of the world to the plight of Alexander Ogorodnikov, imprisoned in a Soviet prison camp since 1978 for founding and running a Christian discussion group.
On 16 December, along with my hon. Friends the Members for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) and for Basildon (Mr. Amess), and the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), I went to St. Sepulchre's church to take part in a lunchtime Bible reading and thereby show my support for Mr. Hart's action and for Alexander Ogorodnikov. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) drew the attention of the House to the case of Alexander on 15 December, and tonight I welcome the opportunity to reinforce what he said then in this Adjournment debate.
Alexander Ogorodnikov, who is 36, grew up in an atheist family. His interest in Christianity began when he saw the film "The Gospel According to St. Matthew." In 1973, soon after his conversion, he was expelled from the Cinematograph Institute in Moscow at which he was studying, despite obtaining excellent marks. His persecution had begun. He wished to learn more about his faith and share it with others, so he organised, with like-minded Christians, a discussion and study group, the Christian Seminar. It was an informal gathering of friends, which met in private, without seeking publicity for its activities. Despite this, members of the group started to attract the attention of the authorities. Alexander himself experienced difficulties both at work and in private life. He was dismissed from a variety of menial jobs and forced to move house. Two other members of the seminar were incarcerated in psychiatric hospitals, and 31 members were interrogated, searched and pressurised.
The seminar continued to meet. The members had lectures and discussions on theology, theosophy, sociology, philosophy and the history of religion. On 20 November 1978 Alexander was arrested on charges of parasitism—it is illegal to be out of work in the Soviet Union—even though he was on his way to an interview at the time. He was tried and sentenced in January 1979. He was not allowed to call defence witnesses, and was sentenced to one year's imprisonment and sent to a labour camp. In transit he was beaten up when he asked to see a priest.
In September 1980 Alexander was tried on charges of anti-Soviet agitation and propaganda, for publishing and publicising the seminar's official journal. He was sentenced to six years in a strict regime labour camp, followed by five years' internal exile. In January 1981 he began a hunger strike to protest about the taking away of his Bible. His attempts to have his Bible returned were unsuccessful. He was particularly harshly treated in prison. He was forbidden to pray and his cross was torn from around his neck on numerous occasions. In six years he spent a total of 659 days in protest hunger strikes to

back up his demands for the return of his Bible, 411 days in the camp's internal prison and three days in the severe conditions of the punishment cell.
From December 1983 until February 1984 he was in a cell, the walls of which were entirely covered with ice, and on one occasion his cell was deliberately flooded with sewage. In November 1985, when he was due to complete the camp part of his sentence and go into internal exile, he was rearrested in camp, charged with violating camp discipline and re-sentenced.
He is in a desperate condition, having lost all his teeth and become almost blind. In eight years his wife has been allowed only one visit. In a letter to his mother, he pleaded that she appeal to the Praesidium of the Supreme Soviet to show him a measure of mercy by ordering his execution by firing squad, thus putting an end to the prospect of a lifelong, painfully slow torture by deprivation of living conditions fit for a human being, by imprisonment in punishment cells, by humiliations, by beatings, by a total lack of rights.
One of the worst aspects of his imprisonment was the feeling that he was alone. He could not draw comfort from the knowledge that Christians in Russia and in the West knew about him and were working and praying for his release, because news did not reach him. Thankfully, as a result of the growing, worldwide interest, the signing of petitions, letters to the Soviet authorities and the efforts of Athanasius Hart, Alexander was, around Christmas time, allowed a visit from his mother and from a priest, who was able to give him holy communion.
We are grateful to the Soviet authorities for allowing those visits, but this courageous man, who is setting such a splendid example to those of us who are free to practise our religion and who often take our freedom for granted, needs our continued support. His treatment and the reasons why he received it clearly contravene not only the Helsinki agreement on human rights but Soviet law. We must continue to press for his release and also draw attention to his many fellow countrymen who are facing similar difficulties.

Mr. David Evennett: I am pleased to be able to participate in this debate. I congratulate my good friend the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves) on his speech. His comments on the case of Alexander Ogorodnikov in the light of the Helsinki accord on human rights were extremely informative and expressed powerfully.
In this country, as my hon. Friend said, we take our freedom for granted. The opportunity to vote, to express our views and to worship as we wish are fundamental to our way of life. In Russia, however, despite that country's signature of the Helsinki accord, the authorities blatantly fail to allow their citizens such human rights. I deplore the Soviet regime and distrust the word of its leadership. That is one reason why I strongly support the British Government's defence policies, particularly the retention of our nuclear deterrent, to ensure that our freedom is safeguarded.
We are all aware of the plight of many of Christian and of Jewish faith in the Soviet Union. They are oppressed, victimised and in many cases harassed, imprisoned and mistreated. However, the newsworthiness of the sufferings of ordinary people in Russia has diminished in the West. Regrettably, the stories of the dissidents and the oppressed


in Russia no longer command the newspaper headlines or get the media coverage that they deserve, yet the sufferings of individuals, their families and their friends go on. We in the West have a duty to ensure that the torch of freedom continues to burn and let those suffering in Russian gaols know that they are not forgotten. To that end, I was delighted to visit Mr. Athanasius Hart during his recent vigil at St. Sepulchre's church for Mr. Ogorodnikov, not only to support Mr. Hart but, I hope, to help to obtain freedom for Alexander Ogorodnikov.
In 1977, the Soviet Union, along with the United Kingdom, the United States of America and other countries, signed the Helsinki accord. In part VII of that agreement those signing agreed
to respect human rights, freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, religion or belief.
They agreed also
to recognise and respect the freedom of the individual to profess and practise alone or in community with others, religion or belief in accordance with the dictates of his own conscience.
The cruel and inhumane treatment received by many in the Soviet Union is at variance with the undertakings given when the Helsinki agreement was signed. Alexander Ogorodnikov is but one case in an unhappy line.
The story of Alexander Ogorodnikov has touched many of us deeply. His position is heartrending, as we have heard. He has committed no crime, nor harmed his country. He is neither a politician nor a political activist. He merely wants the freedom to worship God in his own way with other Christians and live a Christian life with his wife and child. For such a limited demand, he has been starved, imprisoned in inhumane conditions, denied all rights, separated from his family and friends and caged like a wild animal. For the activity of organising Bible studies, he is imprisoned and treated badly. This is the Russian way of implementing human rights post-Helsinki 1977.
We must remember that Alexander Ogorodnikov is not an isolated case. Altogether there are some 10,000 prisoners of conscience in the Soviet Union of whom some 2,000 are religious believers. Soviet law states that believers may hold worship services only in a building registered for that purpose, but even members of registered churches are not allowed to discuss their beliefs outside the building registered for worship. Meanwhile, Christians who encourage others in the faith stand to lose their jobs.
The 1977 Helsinki accord on human rights, signed amid a fanfare of trumpets and loudly acclaimed, has turned out to be an absolute farce. The record of the USSR on the important issue of human rights is deplorable and has not shown any appreciable improvement since Helsinki. The suffering regrettably continues and the hard men of the Kremlin remain unconcerned, unmoved and unchanging.

Mr. A. J. Beith: The hon. Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves) has done a great service in bringing this matter to the attention of the House, and I warmly commend him for doing so.
Alexander Ogorodnikov has suffered the most appalling privations because he wishes to profess the Christian faith, to further his own spiritual pilgrimage in that faith and to discuss that faith with others. For that he has had the most appalling penalties which go far beyond anything that Soviet law, restrictive as it is,

prescribes for someone who takes such actions. It is right that the attention of the world should be focused upon it. A total of 60,000 people have added their names to petitions in support of him and there have been many other petitions about others who have suffered similarly.
There is a lot of change going on in the Soviet Union at the moment. General Secretary Gorbachev has a lot of change on his plate as he embarks on economic reforms, but of crucial importance to the perception of the Soviet Union in the West is whether these attitudes towards religious dissidents will change. If they do not, no amount of glossy propaganda or overtures on wider issues like disarmament will convince people in the West that the necesssary changes have taken place.
Mr. Gorbachev put his name to a declaration alongside Rajiv Ghandi in Delhi at the end of his visit, on 27 November. That declaration said:
Philosophies and policies based on violence and intimidation, inequality and oppression, and discrimination on the base of race, religion or colour, are immoral and impermissible. They spread intolerance, destroy man's noble aspirations and negate all human values.
I suspect that that sentence owes more to Indian than to Soviet drafting, but Mr. Gorbachev signed it with his name, and now is the time for him to demonstrate that he believes what he signed.
We all welcome the release of Irina Ratushinskaya. Whether or not that was influenced by the potential propaganda effect is immaterial to those of us whose concern was that she should be released. We want to see Alexander Ogorodnikov and others released. I hope that the Government will continue to add their voice, as they have already done, to campaigns for people such as this.

Mr. David Amess: Like my hon. Friends the Members for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves) and for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) and the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), I felt privileged to show my support for Alexander Ogorodnikov by taking part in the Bible readings at St. Sepulchre's church.
My colleagues have set out in detail the history of this sad case and have shown quite clearly that the cruel and inhuman treatment which Alexander Ogorodnikov has received contravenes the Helsinki agreement on human rights. I believe that his treatment also shows many instances of violations of the Soviet Union's own laws. Article 124 of the constitution of the USSR provides that
freedom of religious worship and freedom of anti-religious propaganda is recognised for all citizens.
Article 125 says:
in conformity with the interests of working people and in order to strengthen the socialist system the citizens of the USSR are guaranteed by law, (a) freedom of speech; (b) freedom of the press; (c) freedom of assembly".
Clearly, from what has been said about the arrest of Alexander Ogorodnikov and the publication of the seminar's magazine "Community" he has not been allowed free speech, freedom of the press or freedom of assembly. The Christian seminar was simply a small group of people wishing to discuss and strengthen their belief. There does not appear to be any legal basis for the Soviet Government to take action against them. In addition, practices and conditions in the camp often do not meet legal requirements. There is overcrowding and illegal detention, whilst punishment cells are built smaller than is specified by law.
The treatment of Alexander Ogorodnikov needs dealing with urgently at the highest level. Along with my colleagues, I urge my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to make representations to the Soviet authorities and to press for the immediate release of Alexander. We ask that the Prime Minister take up the case with Mr. Gorbachev, along with the whole question of human rights, when she goes to Moscow. We ask that she emphasises to him that people in the West cannot understand how people such as Alexander can be treated in such a way in a supposedly civilised society. My right hon. Friend needs to explain to Mr. Gorbachev that people in the West are extremely worried by the obvious failure of the Soviet Union to implement the Helsinki agreement. Such examples of its blatant contraventions make many people wonder whether the Soviet Union, if it cannot be trusted in this respect, can be trusted to abide by other agreements that it seeks to make.
When the Prime Minister met Mr. Gorbachev, she said that she thought that she could do business with him. I met him briefly myself and I agree with my right hon. Friend's judgment. That being so, I hope that in March, when my right hon. Friend goes to Moscow, she will do business successfully with Mr. Gorbachev on this important issue of human rights.

12 midnight

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tim Eggar): The issues before us in this evening's debate are important, and I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargeaves) for raising them. I am grateful also to my hon. Friends the Members for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) and for Basildon (Mr. Amess), and to the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) for contributing to the debate.
Alexander Ogorodnikov, who is the subject of our debate, is about 36 years old. He is a Christian. The suffering that he has had to undergo because of his faith has been movingly recounted by my hon. Friends and the hon. Gentleman. I do not wish to detain the House at length by recounting those sufferings, because the House is aware of them.
Alexander Ogorodnikov's story is well known to Foreign Office Ministers and officials. It has caused us concern for a considerable time, for a number of reasons. First, Alexander should not have been arrested. The organisation of a discussion group should not be considered a crime merely because the opinions that the members express are not those of the Government. Secondly, once arrested, he should have been given a fair trial and allowed to conduct a proper defence. Thirdly, once imprisoned, he should never have been subjected to the sort of treatment that he has received. One would not wish such treatment to be meted out to anyone, irrespective of his crime.
Sadly, Alexander's story is far from unique. There are many others languishing in prisons or labour camps for their faith. There are Baptists, Pentecostalists, Catholics, Moslems and, of course, many members of the Soviet Jewish community. In the short time that is available to me tonight I do not wish to spend more time detailing the

tragic facts. Instead, I want to address what the Government can do and are doing on behalf of these people.
The Soviet Union has no monopoly of inhumanity and injustice. Eleven years ago in Helsinki, however, the Soviet Union, together with 35 other European Governments, put its signature to the Helsinki Final Act. In doing so it solemnly committed itself to a number of important undertakings. The one which particularly concerns us tonight is known as principle VIII. It is frequently quoted and I think that it bears repetition. It commits all those who signed it to
recognise and respect the freedom of the individual to profess and practise, alone or in community with others, religion or belief acting in accordance with the dictates of his own conscience".
One has only to reflect upon what that principle states to realise that the Soviet Union is in direct breach of it. We cannot allow it to continue to get away with it. That is why the British Government continue to return to the subject again and again in all out bilateral contacts with the Soviet Union, both directly an in multilateral forums such as the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, and we shall continue to do that for as long as it is necessary. For example, my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary raises human rights issues regularly in his meetings with Mr. Shevardnadze. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) is at this moment in Moscow, where he is consulting Mr. Kovalev, the Soviet First Deputy Foreign Minister. I know that he intends to raise human rights issues and will have the case of Alexander Ogorodnikov in mind.
I went to Vienna just before Christmas to address the CSCE review meeting on behalf of the European Community. I drew the attention of delegates to the harassment of religious believers and the many other ways in which citizens in certain countries were being deprived of their basic human right. I warned that we and our partners in the European Community would continue to speak out for as long as the injustices persisted.
Our delegation in Vienna has ensured that human rights issues have been at the forefront of the meeting's attention throughout this first session, and it has pointed specifically to the case of Alexander Ogorodnikov as an example of the sort of behaviour that cannot be reconciled with the commitments contained in the Helsinki Final Act.
If those representations are to have their full effect, the Russians need to be convinced that the Government are not engaging in political point scoring but are representing the deeply felt concerns of the British public. That is why the debate tonight, together with the numerous pressure groups, organisations such as Keston college and many individuals who selflessly devote time and energy to bringing cases such as that of Alexander Ogorodnikov to public attention, have such a vital role to play. On behalf of the Government I should like to pay a warm tribute to them.
Public statements of condemnation, whether by private groups and individuals or by the Government, are not enough. Of course, we must make such statements, but for maximum effect they must be mixed with a good measure of quiet behind the scenes persuasion, or we risk producing only stubborn resistance. Quiet persuasion requires a certain element of confidentiality. That is why the Foreign Office sometimes prefers not to give full details of exchanges with the Soviet Government or other


Governments on human rights issues. That is also one of the reasons why, although we regularly raise individual cases, we avoid giving categorical commitments in public.
We cannot "force" the Soviet Union to behave better. Experience suggests that in practice threats to cancel trade deals, and cultural events, or to refuse to talk to the Soviet Government until they mend their ways, carry little weight. Sadly, such tactics are unlikely to do anything to help Alexander Ogorodnikov and his fellow sufferers, and our general principle must he to try to expand contacts, not cut back on them. Cultural contacts, trade contacts, contacts in any area are one of the means that we have of influencing the Russians toward more civilised behaviour. The Vienna CSCE meeting was one such attempt, semipublicly and privately, to raise issues such as we have been discussing tonight. As I have already said, we raised the case of Alexander.
It might be of interest to the House to say that at the Vienna meeting the Soviet delegation tabled a proposal for a conference of all 35 participating states to be held in Moscow to discuss the so-called Basket III subjects—human contacts, information, culture and education. As yet we do not know much about the proposal. We have only the bare outline of it. It will be discussed along with proposals in the same area from other CSCE participating states in the next session of the meeting. Then we will want to know more about what is proposed. We will want to know specifically whether it is envisaged that human rights as well as human contacts will be on the agenda. We will want to know what arrangements are to be made for attendance by interest groups of various types from abroad, and from interests groups from within the country concerned, especially Helsinki monitors. We will also want to know about publicity arrangements.
We believe that any country offering to host such meetings will need to have its own performance scrupulously examined. In the case of the Moscow conference proposal, for example, it would be difficult to conceive that agreement would be reached to hold such a meeting if foreign broadcasts were still jammed or Helsinki monitors still imprisoned. But, as I have already explained, the main thing that we will be looking for in considering this and other proposals in this area will be a mechanism to increase the incentive for participating states to match their implementation record to the brave words that they signed at Helsinki 11 years ago.
I agree with my hon. Friend that we cannot be anything but gravely disappointed with the progress that has been made during the past 11 years. The cruel death of Anatoly Marchenko a few weeks ago, at a time when his release was being widely forecast, is a reminder of how much progress we have to make.
As the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed said, there have been some encouraging signs. These recent

developments demonstrate that the Soviet Government are at times prepared to respond to sustained western pressure. Shcharansky, Orlov and others who have come to the West have all stressed the importance for the human rights movement in the Soviet Union of continued support from Western Governments, both public and behind the scenes. Their voices are voices that we should listen to.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed referred to the Gorbachev policy of greater openness. That policy has struck a chord with many, both in his own country and abroad. But those who wish to believe that the Soviet Union has turned the corner will come up against the sad fact that in reality the breath of fresh air creeping into some areas of Soviet society has not yet been heard or felt by those who run human rights policies. We have much progress to make.
Our aim must be to persuade the Soviet Government to question their own attitudes—to put themselves under the microscope. Sometimes repressive practices can become institutionalised to the extent that Governments no longer believe that they are wrong. We must try to bring the Soviet Government to understand that a country of such stature as theirs, a superpower, should not feel threatened by handfulls of brave individuals who refuse to conform and insist on thinking for themselves. The Soviet Government should also understand that lessons of history suggest that in the long run such persecution does not succeed in stamping out non-comformist thinking—often the reverse; it encourages it.
We also have to try to get across to the Soviet Union the extent to which their failure to meet their CSCE obligations damages their reputation in the West and undermines the "charm offensive" to which Mr. Gorbachev and others in the Soviet leadership have been devoting so much energy in recent months.
In a letter smuggled out from his prison in May 1986, Ogorodnikov appealed to the Soviet Government for his own execution. There can be no more heartrending evidence of the suffering that he is undergoing. I appeal to the Soviet Government—and I am sure that all my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed will join me in saying this—to consider whether his suffering is really necessary and to set him free before it is too late. I also ask the Soviet Government to ask themselves again whether it is in their own interests that the hundreds of prisoners of conscience still incarcerated in labour camps need to remain there. The answer from this House must be no. The answer must go out clearly, and I believe it has done so tonight.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes past Twelve o'clock.